SHIVANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 498-A, 307 and 302 IPC on a trail held by the Fast Track Court-V, Mysore.

(2.) SANS unnecessary details the prosecution version unfolded during the trial is as under:s lakshmi [p. W. I] is the wife of the accused and Madashetty [p. W. 2] is her father. Mahadeva [deceased] was the son of Madashetty [p. W. 2] and brother of Lakshmi [p. W. I], whereas Sunanda [p. W. 7] is the wife of mahadeva [deceased]. Somanna [c. W. 1] is the younger brother of Lakshmi [p. W. 1]. The marriage of Lakshmi [p. W. 1] was held with the accused about 8 years prior to the incident. Out of the wedlock, they have a female child aged about 7 years. The accused was a drunkard and was not providing food and clothes to his wife and she was harassed by cruel treatment of the accused and therefore, about 3 months earlier to the incident she came to the house of her father Madashetty [p. W. 2] along with the child and was staying in their house. The accused used to come to the house of madashetty [p. W. 2] i. e. , his father-in-law and was insisting them to send his wife. They asked the accused to bring the elders and despite the advise, the accused used to come to their house in an intoxicated condition and used to quarrel with his wife and therefore, Lakshmi [p. W. 1] did not go to the house of the accused. On 3. 6. 2000 i. e. , on the date of the incident at about 6. 00 p. m. , when lakshmi [p. W. 1], her father Madashetty [p. W. 2], mother Chikkaputtamma and Mahadeva [deceased] and Sunanda [p. W. 7], the wife of Mahadeva [deceased] were in the house, the accused came and called his wife Lakshmi [p. W. 1] to accompany him to his place. At that time, the family members asked the accused to bring the elders and even Lakshmi [p. W. 1] told that in case if he comes with elders, she is ready to follow him. The accused was angry and stating that he will finish her, took out the knife from the waist and assaulted Lakshmi [p. W. I] on the abdomen and also on the face. At that time, Mahadeva (deceased) came to the rescue of his sister-Lakshmi [p. W. 1] and the accused quarreled with him stating that he has not sent his sister to his place and assaulted Mahadeva (deceased) on his right chest with the knife. Due to the injuries, Mahadeva (deceased) and lakshmi [p. W. I] fell to the ground. The rest of the family members i. e. , madashetty [p. W. 2], Sunanda [p. W. 7], Somanna [c. W. I] and others shouted for help and as the accused saw the people coming to the house, ran away from the spot with the knife. Immediately, they secured a tempo and took Mahadeva (deceased) and Lakshmi [p. W. I] to the Government hospital at Nanjangud and the doctors declared that the injured Mahadeva is dead. In the circumstances, the A. S. I. [p. W. 15], in-charge of Nanjangud rural Police Station received the telephone call from the Government hospital about the arrival of Mahadeva (deceased) and Lakshmi [p. W. 1], the injured and immediately went to the Government Hospital. Somanna [c. W. I], who had accompanied the injured and the deceased submitted his written complaint [ex. P. 12]. As Mahadeva was dead by that time p. W. 15 returned to the Police Station and registered Crime No,108/2000 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 302 and 307 IPC and sent the complaint [ex. P. 12] and FIR [ex. P13] to the Magistrate. Later he went to the Government Hospital again and held the inquest [ex. P2] on the dead body of Mahadeva in the presence of Eshwara [p. W. 5] and others. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. While Lakshmi [p. W. I] was in the Government hospital for treatment, he obtained the M. L. C. Report [ex. P8] regarding. the treatment. After the post-mortem examination, the clothes on the body of Mahadeva (deceased) were produced and he seized the clothes and articles [m. Os. 2 to 5] in the presence of Eashwara [p. W. 5] and others. He went to the sport and held the mahazar [ex. P14] and at that time, he seized unstained and blood stained soil [m. Os. 6 and 7 respectively] in two plastic boxes. On 4. 6. 2000 he arrested the accused and as his clothes were blood stained, he seized the clothes [m. Os. 8 and 9] under mahazar [ex. P15]. On interrogation, the accused volunteered to produce the weapon. He recorded the statement of the accused [ex. P16] who led the police and the attesting witnesses [p. W. 12] and others and produced the knife [m. O. I] from a place at a distance of 75 ft. from the bus stand from a hidden place and he seized it under mahazar [ex. P9]. Thereafter, Chaluvaraju, Circle inspector, [p. W. 13] continued the investigation and as Lakshmi [p. W. 1] was not in the condition to give her statement, went to the hospital again on 12. 6. 2000 and recorded her statement. H. C. Vijayakumar, Circle inspector, [p. W. 14] secured the post-mortem report [ex. P4] and the M. L. C. Report [ex. P. 10] and also sent the knife [m. O. I] for the opinion of the doctor and secured the opinion [ex. P5]. He sent the seized articles for the opinion of forensic experts and also collected the injury certificate [ex. P7] of Lakshmi [p. W. 1]. The F. S. L. Report [ex. Pll] was obtained and on completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused. During the trial, the prosecution led the evidence by examining P. Ws. l to 15 and got marked Exs. Pl to 16 and M. Os. l to 9. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. He has taken defence of total denial and has not led any defence evidence. The trial Court on appreciation of the material on record convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 498-A, 307 and 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also further sentenced for other offences and ordered to pay the fine. Aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence, the accused has approached this Court in the appeal.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also the state Public Prosecutor.