STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. P ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.02.2012 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chitradurga, in S.C.No.149/2011, wherein the respondents herein have been acquitted for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case that Badagi Chenappa S/o Bangarappa (P.W.1) has lodged the complaint (Ex.P-1), wherein he has stated that he is residing in the address mentioned in the complaint, he is having two wives namely Kyasamma and Pappamma. Pappamma was having a son by name Shivalingappa, who is the deceased, and Kyasamma was not having male issues. Shivalingappa, the son of the complainant, was aged 35 years and he was doing agriculture, he was having wife by name Sharadamma and they were having four children namely Sudha, Siddesh, Keerthan and Ankita. The complainant took the water for his land from the neighbouring land of one Sannaiah. Everyday Shivalingappa and his wife used to go to the land during night to watering the land. Accordingly, on 24.06.2011 Shivalingappa, the deceased, went to the land at about 6.00p.m. stating that he will go to water the land. Sharadamma/accused No.2, the wife of said Shivalingappa, also went to the land at 7.30p.m., she carried meals to Shivalingappa, thereafter she returned at about 11.30p.m., but Shivalingappa was in the land itself, he was taking water to his land. On 25.06.2011 morning at 7.00a.m. one Bommaiah, the nephew of the complainant, came and informed that Shivalingappa expired, nearby panel board in the land. Complainant went and seen that his son Shivalingappa was dead, he raised suspicion that whether the death of Shivalingappa is because of short circuit or it is because of some other reasons. There was bleeding from the mouth of Shivalingappa and the lips were swollen, but there were no injuries on any part of the body. Therefore, the complainant has requested to take legal action against the culprits.

(3.) Initially, the case was registered in UDR No.41/2011 under Section 174(c) of Cr.P.C. Then inquest mahazar was conducted as per Ex.P-2, the statement of relatives also came to be recorded at the time of inquest mahazar proceedings. The sum and substance of the statement of witnesses i.e., relatives, are substantially one and the same with the contents of the complaint. When the dead body was sent to Post-Mortem examination, the Doctor, after examining the dead body gave the PM report and he gave the opinion that death is because of throttling. On the basis of that, again the FIR came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC in Chitradurga Rural Police Station Crime No.301/2011. Then, after hearing both sides the trial Court framed charges against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC. When the charges were readover and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.