LAXMAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction passed in S.C.No.53/2008 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad dated 01.04.2010, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 307 and 504 of IPC.

(2.) The accusation made in the charge sheet is that the appellant married PW.7 Smt. Mallavva about 11 years prior to the incident and both of them were residing together and in the wedlock they were having three children. During the 11 years of living together, this appellant did not allow his wife PW.7 to visit her parents house even once. In one occasion when the father of PW.7 requested the accused to send his daughter to his house, the accused assaulted and sent him back. According to the prosecution, about 6 months earlier to the incident also the brother-in-law of the appellant i.e. brother of PW.7 got married in Sampagaon in Belagavi District. The appellant, his wife PW.7 and their 3 children came to the marriage function directly from Belavadi and further alleged, at that time, the accused picked up quarrel with his wife PW.7 and assaulted her and also gave threat to her life. Therefore, the parents of the PW.7 brought her to their house at Garag Village and since then, PW.7 was residing with her parents at Garag and accused had lodged the complaint before the Alnavar police alleging abduction of his wife by her parents. But at the mediation of Alnavar police, the parents of PW.7 agreed to send her back after few days. In the meanwhile, on 23.12.2005 at about 2.00 p.m., the accused came to the house of his in-laws situate in Srikanth Nagar lane in Garag Village and started abusing his wife and forced her to return back immediately. It is alleged that when mother-in-law of the accused asked the accused to come in and wait till the arrival of her husband, the accused appellant is stated to have removed a chopper (Koita) which was hidden at the back and assaulted PW.6 i.e., his mother-in-law on her shoulder and back of her head. Thereafter, with the same chopper, he assaulted his wife on her head, near the left ear, left shoulder and on the right fore-arm. As a result of this incident, both of them have sustained severe injuries. On hearing the screaming sound the neighbours i.e. Thimmanna, Shekhappa, Venkanna and Yellavva who have been examined as PWs.9, 11, 13 and 12 respectively rushed to the spot and accused fled away from the place in which motorcycle he came. Hence, the complaint was filed and police after investigation have filed the charge sheet against the appellant.

(3.) The prosecution in order to prove the allegations made in the charge sheet has relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 20 including the injured persons and the appellant did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The prosecution relied upon the documents Exs.P1 to 24. The accused only got marked Ex.D1 copy of the spot panchanama and prosecution relied upon MOs.1 to 13. The Court below after hearing the arguments of both the sides, convicted the appellant. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant in this appeal has contended that the Court below erred in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence.