P.G.M.Patil - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2011 and order of sentence dated 21.12.2011 passed in Sessions Case No.07/2011 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Yagiri.
(2.) The case of the prosecution before the trial court is as follows ;- The complainant - Devindramma is residing along with her husband and two sons by name Sharanappa, aged about 23 years and Tayappa aged about 21 years whose marriage was being performed on 09.04.2010. The accused - Basavaraj of the same village having developed acquaintance with her sons was visiting the house oftenly and his wife Shankaramma was also visiting the house. On 25.04.2010 the said accused was bawling for having his wife sent to her parental house. On that day at about 8.30 p.m. the complainant's son Sharanappa after having meals went to sleep near new post office of the village at which time the accused abused him stating that he is having illicit relationship with his wife and spoiled his life. He further stated that the said Sharanappa and his brother Tayappa are responsible for having his wife gone to her parental house, by saying so he assaulted with an axe on the head, neck and forehead of Sharanappa and committed his murder. It is further alleged in the complaint that after hearing the news, when Tayappa the second son of the complainant came to the spot near the dead body of his brother Sharanappa and was crying, the accused who was hidden nearby came running and with the same axe assaulted on the head of Tayappa and committed his murder. One Marilingappa S/o Nagappa Harijan and Siddamma W/o Ningappa Ambiger who were nearby witnessed the incident and informed the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant came to the spot and then lodged the complainant before the respondent - police. On the basis of complaint respondent-police registered the case and after investigation Investigating Officer - C.P.I., filed the charge sheet before the learned JMFC, Shahapur. Learned JMFC took cognizance of the alleged offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code registered the case and secured the presence of the accused who was in judicial custody, furnished him the copies of the relevant prosecution papers and then committed the case to the Sessions Court, as the alleged offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. After receipt of the committal records, Sessions Case No.07/2011 was registered on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Yadgiri. The presence of the accused was secured and on his request a standing counsel Advocate was appointed to defend the accused in the case. Thereafter, the Sessions Court heard the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused and framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused he denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the trial was fixed. In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined in all 15 witnesses as PWs.1 to 15 and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.18 and material objects as M.O.No.1 to 7. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on his examination. The case of the accused is that of total denial. The accused did not choose to adduce any defence evidence. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused passed the impugned judgment convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.
(3.) The appellant/accused being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has filed the present appeal on the following grounds :- a) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is improper, illegal and same is liable to be set aside. b) There are no eye witnesses in the case and PWs.6 and 7 are also not eye witnesses to the incident and their evidence cannot be accepted and is not reliable for convicting the accused. c) The learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record properly. Hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set-aside. d) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence has resulted in miscarriage of justice and is liable to be set-aside.;