KUMARAIAH @ KOMARI Vs. HALAGURU RURAL POLICE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused assailing the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in S.C.No.62/2013 dated 25.07.2014 wherein the appellant-accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo S.I for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and also default sentence of S.I for six months.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel Sri.Vinayaka.V.S for the appellant-accused and the learned Addl. SPP Sri.Vijay Kumar Majage for the respondent-State.

(3.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the accused that the learned Trial Judge, without considering the material placed on record, erroneously passed the impugned order. The same is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that nearly 1- 1/2 hours delay is there in lodging the complaint by P.W.4 and even there is no explanation for the said delay. Though P.W.4 was living in the opposite house where the deadbody was found, he has not acted reasonably and probably. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W.4 is not consistent so as to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He further submitted that there are no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. The entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence. He further submitted that immediately after seeing the body, there was no impediment for P.W.4 to inform the same to P.W.8-the mother of the deceased who was present at the place of the alleged incident to file the complaint. He further submitted that there is difference in the colour of the towel which has been seized as per Ex.P.5 and as per the opinion expressed by the doctor as per Ex.P.12. He further submitted that when there is a discrepancy in the colour of the towel, benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused. He further submitted that if the conduct of P.W.8-mother of the deceased is looked into, it is not natural and probable. Under such circumstances, benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused. Prosecution has not established the case beyond all reasonable doubt. He further submitted by drawing the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.1 that when he was called for the inquest, he found burn injuries over the dead body. The same has not been cross-examined and elicited so as to disbelieve his evidence. He further submitted that there is no strong motive to connect the appellant-accused to the alleged crime. He further submitted that even the last seen circumstance is also not applicable to the facts of the case on hand because of the reason that P.W.8 was also there in the same house on the alleged date of the incident. Under such circumstances, last seen theory ought not to have been believed by the Trial Court. Even the presence of the accused is disbelieved. He further submitted that P.W.8 was having old-age problems and she was having both eye-sight and hearing problem. Under such circumstances, her evidence ought not to have been believed. Under such circumstances, he prays to allow the appeal and acquit the accused.