SOMASHEKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused in S.C. No.34 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in the said case convicting and sentencing the accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and also imposing rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-.

(2.) We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel, Sri Dineshkumar K. Rao, who is appointed by the Legal Services Authority and the learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. We have carefully reevaluated the material on record and also carefully perused the judgment of the trial Court before adverting to the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court.

(3.) The brief factual matrix of the case are that a person, by name R. Thippeswamy, who is none other than the brother of deceased Smt. Bhagyamma, lodged a complaint before the Police on 9-12-2012 at about 11:15 a.m., alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Same was registered in Crime No.349 of 2012. The allegations made against the accused are that, the said deceased was given in marriage to the accused about six years prior to the incident and they were blessed with three children. For about a year, they lived happily with each other, thereafter, the accused started suspecting the fidelity of his wife, alleging that, she has illicit intimacy with others and also he was suspecting the paternity of the children. In this context, it is alleged that, he was assaulting, illtreating and harassing the deceased. The complainant and his mother used to advise the accused in this regard, but in spite of this, he did not desist himself from illtreating and harassing the deceased.