CHETAN C SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pw.4 is the complainant. He is residing in a flat situated in the first floor of the property bearing No.31/1, 18th Cross, 8th Main, Malleshwaram. It is situated behind Pallavi Beauty Parlor. He is residing there along with his wife PW.5. Their two daughters go to college. The deceased is a close relative of PW.5. That the deceased is not of a very sound mind and would therefore always stay at home when PWs.4 and 5 would go to do their work and the children would go to college. The complainant was working as an Assistant Controller in the Weights and Measures Department, of the State Government and his wife PW.5 was a Branch Manager in the Indian Bank, Malleshwaram. PWs.4 and 5 would leave home in the morning to attend to their respective office duties. They would return back only in the evening. Their daughters would return home after college. Therefore, from morning till evening, the deceased would be alone at home doing household work. That on 26.09.2008, as usual, PWs.4 and 5 left home for their work. The daughters also went to their college. At about 3.30 p.m. the daughters came back from their college and knocked the door of their house. There was no response. Therefore, they telephoned their mother through the mobile, who in turn contacted her husband, who thereafter came to the house at about 5.25 p.m. He opened the front door of the house with a key and having entered the house, he saw the deceased was lying with her face down in the bedroom. He sprinkled water and tried to wake her up. She did not respond. He noticed that all the cupboards were open and the articles were scattered. He immediately informed the police control room, who came there at about 7.00 p.m. He gave a written complaint in terms of EX.P3, on the basis of which a case was registered in Crime No.241 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. The Investigating Officer proceeded to the scene of offence along with the dog squad and also requested the fingerprint expert to come there. As spot panchanama was drawn, fingerprints were lifted, blood-stained articles were recovered, the computer UPS were seized, etc. A panchanama was drawn. The dead body was referred to the Victoria Hospital for postmortem and further investigation was taken up. After about a month and a half, the accused was apprehended at 80 feet road, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru on 09.11.2008. He gave his voluntary statement on the basis of which the mobile handset which was sold to him was recovered among various other articles. Based on the voluntary statement, gold articles were recovered from the Karawali Credit Cooperative Society which were pledged by the sister of the accused. Thereafter a charge sheet was laid for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.

(2.) In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 25 witnesses, marked 40 exhibits along with 33 material objects. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. By the impugned order, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, along with payment of fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order of the trial court is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. That the trial Court committed a perversity in holding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. That there are substantial loopholes in the prosecution case which has been ignored by the trial Court. That the evidence of the fingerprint expert - PW.24 cannot be accepted. That the fingerprints have not been accepted in a manner known to law. There is no material to indicate that the fingerprint was lifted in the presence of any panchayathdars or others. That the motive for the commission of the offence has not been proved. That the recovery has also not been established by the trial Court. Hence he pleads that the appeal be allowed by acquitting the accused.