JAYANTH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellant who was accused in S.C.No.152/2012, in the Court of I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 09.02.2017 and order on sentence dated 14.02.2017, wherein he is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'IPC'), and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of thirty days for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case commences with PW-36 - Ramesh Kumar, a Police Sub-Inspector of the respondent-police station receiving a telephone call on 20.6.2012, at about 11.00 p.m. from the Community Health Centre, Moodabidri, by its doctor Smt.Rashmi. He was informed over the telephone that a patient by name Jayanthi in the hospital was murdered by her husband. Immediately, the Police Officer, along with other staff, rushed to the hospital and saw the dead body of deceased Jayanthi in a Ward of the hospital and faculty were treating injured child of said Jayanthi. He enquired about the accused and came to know that accused had run away from the place. In the meantime, he had telephoned to his higher officer i.e., Police Inspector of the respondent-police station on the same night, who also visited the scene of offence along with dog squad and finger print experts. After studying the scenario, he had asked the attendants/family members of the deceased to lodge a complaint. Accordingly, PW- 1 - Kum.Shalini, accompanied the said PW-39, the Police Inspector, to the police station and lodged the complaint as per Ex.P-1.

(3.) After completion of investigation, the respondent-police filed charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was held, wherein the prosecution got examined thirtynine witnesses as PW-1 to PW-39 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-58 and material objects from MO-1 to MO-17. On behalf of the accused, two witnesses were examined as DW-1 and DW-2 and got marked one document at Ex.D-1. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment of conviction dated 9.2.2017 and order on sentence dated 14.2.2017, convicted appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326 and 506 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly. It is against the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal.