LAKSHMANA NAYAKA Vs. NANJUNGUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 302 of IPC on a trial held by the Fast Track Court, Mysore.

(2.) SANS unnecessary details, the prosecution version unfolded during the trial is as under: the accused is the husband of the deceased Lakshmi. Their marriage took place about 18 years prior to the incident. Out of the wedlock, they have two sons and two daughters. About 1 1/2 years earlier to the incident, the accused started abusing and assaulting his wife suspecting her fidelity and chastity. Thereby, the deceased went to her parental home alongwith her son Nanjundanayaka (PW. 5 ). The remaining children were residing with the accused. The deceased had informed her brothers nanjundanayaka (PW. 1), Mahadevanayaka (PW. 2) and Chikkannayaka (PW. 9) regarding the abuse and assault by her husband and they had also advised the accused and asked him to lead a happy matrimonial life and had sent the deceased to the house of the accused. Thereafter, they pulled on well for a year or so, and on the date of the incident at 10. 00 a. m. in the morning, Nanjundanayaka (PW. l) the brother of the deceased received a phone message from his sister's son Nanjundanayaka (PW. 5), who informed that on the said day, the accused had sent him to the land, his another brother and sister to the School and when he returned home from the land, he found his mother deceased Lakshmi lying dead in a pool of blood and that the accused has committed the murder of his mother. Immediately, nanjundanayaka (PW. l) came to Surally Village and found his sister, lakshmi (the deceased) dead with injuries on the neck and later, approached Nanjangud Rural Police and submitted his complaint on the same day i. e. , on 13. 3. 2003 at 2. 30 p. m. and the PSI (PW. 16) registered the complaint (Ex. P. 19) in Crime No. 55 of 2003 for the offence under section 302 IPC. He sent the complaint (Ex. P. 19) and the FIR (Ex. P. 14) to the Magistrate through PW. 14 and went to the spot and held the spot mahazar (Ex. P. l) and at that time, seized the chopper (MO. 5), the blood stained and unstained soil in the presence of the attesting witnesses. Thereafter, the CPI (PW. 17) continued the investigation and held the inquest (Ex. P. 2) in the presence of PWs. 3 and 4 (the attesting witnesses ). He recorded the statement of the witnesses and sent the dead body for postmortem examination through PW. 13, who after the postmortem examination, entrusted the dead body to the relatives and produced the clothes of the deceased (MOs. 1 to 4), which were seized under the mahazar (Ex. P. 10 ). He prepared the sketch (Ex. P. 21) and also secured the photographs of the body of the deceased (Exs. P. 3 to P. 9 ). On 1. 4. 2003, the psi (PW. 16) apprehended and produced the accused and the CPI (PW. 17)arrested him. He secured the postmortem report (Ex. P. 11) and the opinion (Ex. P. 12) and sent the seized articles to the forensic laboratory. On completion of the investigation, he filed the chargesheet against the accused.

(3.) DURING the course of the trial, the prosecution led the evidence of pws. 1 to 17 and got marked the documents Exs. P. l to P. 25 and MOs. 1 to 5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. He has taken the defence of total denial and has not led any evidence in his defence. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the material on record has convicted the accused/appellant and aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, he has approached this Court in appeal.