MAHADEVA S/O MUNISHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Mahadeva, son of Munishetty, appellant herein was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of IPC by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Kollegal in SC.No.13/2010 and he was sentenced to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of five months and was also sentenced to undergo SI for a period of six months by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 5/11.7.2014. Challenging the same he has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) Before we proceed to dwell upon the merits of the case, it is necessary to state the brief facts of case of the prosecution which are that on 1.10.2009 after finishing the dinner, accused forced his daughter Jyothi and his mother Maramma to sleep outside the house by threatening them if they enter into the house, he will cut off their legs. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of his wife deceased Jayamma. When Jayamma slept at about 8.30 p.m. inside the house, he cut off her neck with chopper and thereby committed the murder of his wife Jayamma, thereafter he consumed the poison and tried to commit suicide and as such a case was registered in Crime No.126/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of IPC. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was laid against the accused. Thereafter the committal Court committed the case to the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court took cognizance and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, prepared the charge, which was read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, as such the trial was fixed.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and got marked 26 Exhibits with sub-markings and also 10 Material Objects. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by preparing the questionnaire on the basis of incriminating material. Accused denied the same and thereafter he got examined the doctor as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to prove the case of the prosecution and ultimately convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences.