SOMASHEKAR @ SANDEEP KUMAR @ DEEPU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(2.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses, got marked Exhibits-P1 to P18(a) and 17 material objects. The defence marked Exhibits-D1 to D1 On trial, the accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 397 of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, he was sentenced to life imprisonment till his death along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for one year and for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with payment of fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellantaccused contends that the Trial Court has misread the evidence and material on record. That the trial Court failed to consider the various inconsistencies in the evidence led in by the prosecution. That there is a doubt with regard to the date of arrest of the accused. There is a doubt with regard to the recovery made. That the evidence of the daughter of the deceased PW-5, is not in consonance with the evidence of the prosecution led in through other witnesses. Therefore, if the evidence of PW-5 is to be considered, the entire case of the prosecution falls to the ground. He further contends that even the finger print expert does not report the finger print of the accused at the scene of offence. That the weapon used for the commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC, has not been proved by the prosecution. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be allowed by acquitting the accused.