MANJUNATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 226 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. He stood charged for the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgement dated 4.08.2009, the trial Court convicted him under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.

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

(3.) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed a lone charge against the accused under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution as many as 17 witnesses were examined, 28 documents and 9 materials objects were marked. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased, he has stated about the fact that the accused eloped with the deceased six months prior to the occurrence and he had further stated that the deceased told subsequently that on an earlier occasion, the accused wanted her to come with him again. He has further stated that when he returned to the house at 7.30 p.m., he came to know about the occurrence on 24.06.2005. P.W.2 is the son of the deceased, who has stated that on the crucial date of occurrence, he had gone to the school and when he had returned to the house at 5.00 p.m., the house was found bolted inside. He removed the lock, entered into the house and found the deceased dead. P.Ws.7 and 9 have stated that at about 12.30 p.m., on the same day, they found the accused going to the house of the deceased. P.Ws.3 and 8 have stated that at 4.00 p.m., on 24.06.2005, they found the accused sitting on the roof top of the tiled house of the deceased, removing some tiles. They have further stated that when they shouted, he ran away from the scene of occurrence. P.W.4 is a neighbour, who has stated that on hearing the alarm raised by P.W.2, when he went to the house of the deceased, he found the dead body. P.W.5 is the mother of the deceased, who has stated that on receiving the information about the death of her daughter, she along with her relatives came to the place of occurrence on the night of 24.06.2005 itself. P.W.6 has spoken about the observation mahazar and the rough sketch prepared and the recovery of material objects, from the place of occurrence. P.W.10 has spoken about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recovery of the material objects, more particularly, M.Os. 1 and 2. P.W.11 has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.12, the head clerk of the Court, has spoken to the fact that he forwarded the material objects for chemical examination. P.W.14 is the Pawn Broker, to whom, it is alleged that the accused pledged M.Os. 1 and 2, on 24.06.2005. He has further stated that the same was pledged in the name of one Raja @ Raja Raja. He has also stated that it was only this accused, who pledged the jewels in the said name. He has further stated that when the accused came along with the police, he returned the same to the police. P.W.15 has spoken about the registration of the case. P.Ws. 16 and 17 have spoken about the investigation done, and the final report filed.