RAMACHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Deceased Lalithamma was the wife of the accused. They were married for about 20 years. According to the prosecution, on the date of the incident i.e., on 27.09.2014, the deceased and the accused stayed in the house of the brother of the accused (PW.3). The mother of the deceased PW.1 and one of her relative PW.4 (the wife of PW.3) were sleeping in the house. Accused is stated to have been sleeping in the verandah. At about 12.30 p.m. on hearing the cries of the deceased PWs.1, 3 and 4 got up and found the accused assaulting the deceased with a chopper. On seeing them, the accused threw the chopper on the floor and ran away from the house.

(2.) The mother of the deceased PW.1 lodged a complaint/report about the incident to the police. The accused was arrested on 29.6.2014 at Yagavakote village. On the basis of his voluntary statement, blood stained shirt worn by the accused was recovered under mahazar EX.P12. The weapon seized from the spot of occurrence was sent for FSL examination and on completing the investigation, charge sheet was laid against the appellant/accused.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has proceeded on the basis that the witnesses examined by the prosecution namely PWs.1, 3 and 4 are the eye witnesses to the incident, but the evidence of all these witnesses would go to show that none of these witnesses have actually witnessed the incident. Their evidence go to show that these witnesses woke up on hearing the screams of the deceased and nothing more. Therefore, the Sessions Court has committed a serious error in treating PWs.1, 3 and 4 as eye witnesses to the incident. Further, the learned counsel has pointed out that there was inordinate delay in securing the FSL report which has remained unexplained by the prosecution. The serology report which is one of the essential material to prove complicity of the accused was not produced before the Court leading to doubt the case of the prosecution. In support of this submission the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Gurumallappa vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2013 KAR 5293. Without prejudice to the above contentions, learned counsel argued that the material on record indicate that the incident had taken place on the spur of moment without any premeditation or motive. Under the said circumstances, the facts proved by the prosecution fall within Section 304 (2) and not under Section 302 of IPC and thus the learned counsel pleaded for reduction of sentence.