EREGOWDA @ KULLA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused in S.C.No.228/2011 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (for short, 'trial Court'), has challenged the judgment passed in the said case vide judgment dated 20.06.2013 convicting the appellant/accused and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC; and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC; and also sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

(2.) Before adverting to some of the important grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant while elaborating his arguments on the grounds of appeal, we feel it just and necessary to have the brief factual matrix of this particular case, on which basis the prosecution has levelled the charges against the accused for the above said offences.

(3.) It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused and PW-2 Nagamma are husband and wife and both of them were residing in Neralekere village in Mandya District, along with their children by name Abhishek and Mamatha. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that, the accused was addicted to alcohol and he started ill-treating and harassing his wife in demand of money and also that the accused had demanded from his wife a land which was given to her by her parents, for the purpose of selling the land and utilizing the money for his vices. His wife had refused the same. In this context, there were differences between the accused and PW-2, in respect of which several panchayaths were held and accused assured that he would take care of his wife. Again, the husband and wife joined together and started living happily with each other. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused had an ill-motive in his mind against his wife (PW.2) and therefore, he wanted to do away her life.