YALLAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 302, 448, 354 readwith 511 of ipc on a trial held by the Sessions Judge, Dharward.

(2.) SANS unnecessary details, the prosecution version unfolded during the trial is as under: pw-6 Shivanand, the husband of the deceased Susheela is a resident of Inchal, Taluk Saudatti and was residing in a rented house owned by hanamawwa (PW13 ). He was a supplier in a hotel and as usual on 12. 7. 2004 in the morning at about 5. 30 a. m. , he went to the hotel for his work and his wife Susheela was alone in the house. At about 6. 00 p. m. , when he was working in the hotel, Shankrawwa (PW. 21), the mother of the accused informed on phone to come home urgently and accordingly, shivanand (PW. 6) went to his house and when he tapped the door of his house, his wife Susheela did not open the door and therefore, Hanamawwa (PW. 13) and Shivanand (PW. 6) went towards the back side and found that the back door was opened. When he entered the kitchen, he found his wife lying dead. There was bleeding from the nose and he having been scared, informed his parents about this incident on phone and asked his father Shivayya (PW. 7) to come along with father of the deceased. After the arrival of his father Shivayya (PW. 7) and father-in-law (PW. 11), he went to the Police Station in the night at 00. 30 hours and submitted his complaint (Ex. P. 9) regarding the unnatural death of his wife, with a request to enquire into the same. The ASI (PW 26) received the complaint (Ex. P. 9)from Shivanand and registered UDR Crime No. 18/2004 and sent a requisition to the Taluk Executive Magistrate (PW14) to hold the inquest on the dead body. On 13. 7. 2004 at about 6. 00 a. m. , the PSI (PW 4) visited the scene of occurrence and noticed that there was a ligature mark on the neck and few hairs were found near the left hand of the deceased. Further, there were finger prints on the door of the kitchen and therefore, the PSI (PW. 4) sent a requisition for the dog squad and a request to the finger print experts to visit the house. The sniffer dog, after sniffing the dead body went to the house of the accused. The finger print experts arrived at the spot and took the finger prints available on the back door and other places in the house. A photographer (PW. 25) was also secured and the photographs of the dead body were obtained as per Exs. P. 6 and P. 7. The spot mahazar was held and the six hairs in the left hand of the deceased were seized under the mahazar Ex. P. 4. After the inquest (Ex. P. l) in the presence of PW. 1 and others, the dead body was entrusted for post mortem examination. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and on 13. 7. 2004, the clothes on the body of the deceased (MOs. 1 to 4) were seized under the mahazar Ex. P. 5. He secured the inquest report and on 16. 8. 2004, he received the post mortem report (Ex. P. 13 ). The Doctor had opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. He registered suo motu the Crime No. 179 of 2004 for the offence under Sections 448 and 302 IPC. He sent the complaint (Ex. P. 2) and the FIR (Ex. P. 3) to the magistrate through PW 16. The CPI (PW. 28) recorded the additional statement of PW. 6 which revealed that the accused was teasing the deceased earlier to the incident. He arrested the accused on suspicion on 17. 8. 2004. On interrogation, he recorded the voluntary statement of the accused as per Ex. P. 26. After securing PWs. 10 and 23, he seized the 8 scalp hairs of the accused under Ex. P. ll. He recorded the statement of other witnesses and sent the seized hairs to the forensic laboratory and got prepared the sketch of the scene of occurrence (Ex. P. 15) through the assistant Engineer (PW. 15 ). He obtained the sample finger prints of the accused for comparison with the finger prints obtained on the back door of the house of the deceased and sent them to the finger print experts. On 9. 9. 2004, he received the report from the Inspector, Finger Print Bureau (Ex. P. 20) and also obtained the opinion of the Medical Officer (Ex. P. 14 ). On completion of the investigation, he filed the chargesheet against the accused. Later he received the FSL report (Ex. P. 27) and produced the same before the Court.

(3.) DURING the trial, the prosecution led the evidence by examining pws. 1 to 28 and in their evidence got marked Exs. Pl to P27 and MOs 1 to 5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. He was taken the defence of total denial and has not led any defence evidence. The Trial Court on appreciation of the material on record, convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 302, 448, 354 readwith Section 511 IPC and ordered him to undergo imprisonment for life and other sentences of imprisonment and payment of fine. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has approached this court in appeal.