Smt Kavitha vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 8327 Kant

                         1
                                               R

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                     PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR

                        AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

         CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1372 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

SMT. KAVITHA
W/O MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/A. HOTTE BETTA VILLAGE
RONA HOBLI
MADAKASIRA TALUK
ANANTHPUR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 301.
                                       ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. R.P. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. C.H. HANUMANTHARAYA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KORATAGERE P.S.,
TUMKUR DIST
BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
                                     ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
                               2



      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
OF     CONVICTION      AND   ORDER     OF    SENTENCE
DATED:22.07.2017     PASSED   BY   THE   IV-ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT   AND     SESSIONS   JUDGE,   MADHUGIRI    IN
S.C.NO.5051/2016 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT /
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
302 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF THE ALLEGED
CONVICTION FOR OFFENCE P/U/S. 302 OF IPC.

    THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR .J      DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

This is one of the classic appeals whereby the

appellant / accused is challenging the impugned judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2017

rendered by the IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Madhugiri (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'trial

Court') in S.C.No.5051/2016, convicting the appellant /

accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing her to undergo

life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default,

to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Whereas in

this appeal, the appellant / accused is seeking

intervention in the aforesaid judgment of conviction and

order of sentence by considering the grounds urged in the

appeal and consequently, seeking for setting aside the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered in

the aforesaid case against her and acquit her of the offence

punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'IPC').

2. Heard learned counsel Sri.R.P.Chandrashekar

appearing for the appellant / accused and Sri.Vijaykumar

Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent - State and perused the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence

rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.5051/2016.

3. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under:

It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that, on

24.08.2016 at around 2.00 p.m., the accused had come

with her husband CW.1, who is examined as PW.1 -

Manjunatha, to the Renuka Hospital situated at

Koratagere along with their two months' old girl baby for

treatment, as the child was suffering from some

respiratory problem and also epilepsy. Later, on the same

day, at around 4.00 p.m., as the child had respiratory

problem and epilepsy, the accused, who is none other than

the mother of the deceased girl baby, was not getting the

enough milk to feed the baby, threw her baby into

Suvarnamukhi river by the side of Koratagere town. This

is the narration in the complaint made by PW.1 -

Manjunatha and based upon his complaint, criminal law

was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P15 for the

offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. Subsequent

to registration of the crime and so also criminal law was

set into motion, PW.15 - S.Muniraju being an Investigating

Officer, took up the case for investigation and during

investigation, he conducted spot panchanama at Ex.P2 in

the presence of PW.7 and PW.12 and took photographs at

Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 and also conducted inquest over the dead

body of two months' old baby in the presence of the panch

witnesses as per Ex.P8 in the presence of PW.5 - Babu,

PW.6 - Abhilash and PW.7 - Adinarayana. The dead body

of the two months' old baby had been sent to the mortuary

and whereby PW.14 - Dr.Rudramurthy who conducted

autopsy over the dead body and issued postmortem report

as per Ex.P14 and whereby he opined that the cause of

death was due to asphyxia as a result of drowning.

4. Subsequent to completion of the investigation

done by PW.15 by following the requisite provisions of

section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby laid

the charge sheet against the accused before the committal

court and the committal court had passed an order under

section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure, by following the

requisite provisions and the case has been committed to

the Sessions Court for trial. Subsequently, the accused

has been secured to face the trial, whereby the trial Court

has framed charges against the accused for the offence

punishable under section 302 of IPC and by hearing on

charge by the learned Public Prosecutor so also defence

counsel, read over and explained the charges to the

accused in the language known to her. However, the

accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and

accordingly, plea of the accused has been recorded

separately.

5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution,

the prosecution examined, in all, 15 witnesses as PW.1 to

PW.15 and got marked 16 material documents as Ex.P1 to

Ex.P16. The trial Court has called upon the accused to

enter on her defence evidence as contemplated under

section 233 of Cr.P.C., but the accused did not come

forward to adduce any defence evidence. After completion

of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of

the accused, as contemplated under the provision of

section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused denied

the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution

witnesses against her, but not led any defence evidence on

her behalf.

6. Subsequently, the trial Court heard the

arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and

so also the defence counsel and after appreciating the

evidence of PW.3 - Dr.Mallikarjunaiah who treated the

child aged of two months and the evidence of PW.14 -

Dr.Rudramurthy who conducted autopsy over the dead

body of the child aged two months and issued postmortem

report - Ex.P14 and so also the evidence of PW.15 -

S.Muniraju, Investigating Officer who conducted spot

mahazar at Ex.P2 and inquest over the dead body of two

months' old baby at Ex.P8 and received the postmortem

report at Ex.P14, the trial Court came to the conclusion

that the prosecution has proved the case against the

accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of

IPC, but strangely even after having noticed that CW.1,

CW.3, CW.4, CW.8 and CW.9 have turned hostile and

CW.1, 8 and 9 are her close relative, the trial Court has

completely given a goby to the versions of their statements,

but has given more credentiality to the evidence of PW.3 -

Dr.Mallikarjunaiah, PW.13 - Nataraju, who drew the map

of scene of crime at Ex.P13, PW.14 - Dr.Rudramurthy who

conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued

postmortem report at Ex.P14 and PW.15 - S.Muniraju,

Investigating Officer, while rendering the conviction

judgment which is reflected in the operative portion of the

order. The trial Court has held that the circumstances

and the evidence of the Doctor proves the case of the

prosecution and has observed that the only inference that

can be drawn from the completed chain of events is that

the accused threw the child into the river and killed it.

These are the observations that were made by the trial

Court while rendering conviction to the accused for the

offence under section 302 of IPC. The trial court relied on

the judgments reported in following cases;

i) 2007 Crl.L.J. 2282 - YOGESH NARASIN SAXENA vs.

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL;

ii) 2015(4) KCCR - SN 413(SC) - STATE OF PUNJAB

vs. BITTU & Another, and;

iii) (2017)2 SCC (Crimes) 262 - KISHORE BHADKE vs.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, while rendering a conviction

judgment against the accused for the offence punishable

under section 302 of IPC. It is this impugned judgment

which has been challenged in this appeal, urging the

various grounds.

7. Heard learned counsel Sri.R.P.Chandrashekar

appearing for the appellant / accused, who has taken us

through the evidence of PW.1- Manjunatha, who is the

father of the deceased two months' old baby and the

author of the complaint at Ex.P1 whereby the

circumstances were narrated in the FIR at Ex.P15, has

turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, but the trial

Court had given conviction without appreciation of the

evidence on the part of the prosecution. Therefore, it

requires intervention in this appeal, if not intervened,

certainly gravamen of accusations would be the sufferer

and also substantial miscarriage of justice would arise. It

is further contended that the evidence of PW.3 -

Dr.Mallikarjunaiah who treated the child at Renuka

Hospital, Koratagere and advised PW.1 - Manjunatha and

accused, who are the parents of the child, to get blood test

done of that baby, does not support the case of the

prosecution to prove that the accused has caused death of

the deceased two months' old baby.

8. PW.2 and PW.4 are the witnesses on the part of

the prosecution to prove the last scene theory. But this

theory requires to be established by the prosecution by

facilitating worthwhile evidence, but in the case on hand,

both PW.2 and PW.4 have turned hostile to the case of the

prosecution theory. They are the most material witnesses

in respect of the offences leveled against the accused, but

PW.2 and PW.4 did not support the case of the prosecution

to any extent, but this grave discrepancy has not been

taken into consideration and also not properly appreciated

by the trial Court and conviction has been rendered by the

trial Court, therefore, on this count alone, it requires to be

intervened in this appeal, by considering the grounds as

urged therein by referring to the evidence of PW.2 and

PW.4 inclusive of the evidence of PW.5, PW.6 and PW.7.

PW.5 to PW.7 are the panch witnesses in respect of

inquest (Ex.P8) done over the dead body of girl baby aged

about two months, but nothing incriminating against this

accused is forthcoming on the part of the prosecution by

facilitating worthwhile evidence. Even PW.8, PW.9, PW.10

and PW.11 have been subjected to examination on the part

of the prosecution who were present during the inquest

done over the dead body of girl baby aged about two

months, but these witnesses have also turned around the

fulcrum of the facts of the inquest proceedings at Ex.P8.

Even though they are the material witnesses on the part of

the prosecution, they did not withstood examination done

on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt against the

accused. PW.12, who is one of the witnesses, has been

subjected to examination in respect of spot mahazar at

Ex.P2. Even this witness has also not withstood relating

to the incriminating facts as narrated or stated in the spot

mahazar said to have been conducted by PW.15 being an

Investigating Officer. PW.13 being the Engineer who drew

the map of scene of crime as per Ex.P13, nothing

incriminating has been elicited by the prosecution to prove

the guilt against the accused. PW.14 being the Doctor who

conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued

postmortem report as per Ex.P14, nothing worthwhile has

been elicited by the prosecution. But the trial Court has

given more credentiality to the evidence of PW.14 -

Dr.Rudramurthy who is the Doctor who conducted

postmortem, PW.15 - S.Muniraju who is the Investigating

Officer and PW.3 - Dr.Mallikarjunaiah, being the Doctor

who provided treatment to that baby aged of two months,

but the gravamen of the accusations is the sufferer, who is

in judicial custody for almost six years since from the date

of arrest. Even though there is no worthwhile evidence

which has been facilitated by the prosecution, despite of

which conviction has been held by the trial Court.

Therefore, in this appeal, it requires to be intervened by

considering the grounds as urged therein, if not, the

accused would be the sufferer and there shall be

substantial miscarriage of justice. On all these premises,

learned counsel for the appellant / accused emphatically

submitted for consideration of the grounds as urged in this

appeal and sought for intervention and consequently

setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.5051/2016

and to acquit the accused of the offence punishable under

section 302 of IPC.

9. On the other hand, Sri.Vijaykumar Majage,

learned Addl. SPP appearing for State, has taken us

through the evidence of PW.3 - Dr.Mallikarjunaiah being

the Doctor who provided the treatment to the girl baby

aged two months who was suffering from some sort of

respiratory problem and also epilepsy, for that reason the

parents namely PW.1 - Manjunatha and accused Kavitha,

who is none other than the genital mother of that baby,

have taken the baby to the Renuka Hospital at Koratagere,

where the Doctor - PW.3 had given treatment and gave

advice to the parents that the child requires to be

subjected to blood test, but the accused Kavitha who is

mother of the deceased baby aged of two months, threw

that baby into the Suvarnamukhi river which is situated

by the side of Koratagere town on 24.08.2016 at around

4.00 p.m. The allegation is the child had respiratory

problem and also epilepsy and accused was not getting

proper milk to feed that child and this was the intention

kept in her mind which made her to throw the child into

Suvarnamukhi river and cause her death. This is the

theory put forth by the prosecution and same has been

established by the prosecution by facilitating the evidence

through PW.3 - Dr.Mallikarjunaiah who gave treatment to

the baby and PW.14 - Dr.Rudramurthy who conducted

autopsy over the dead body at Ex.P14 and PW.15 -

S.Muniraju, Investigating Officer, who laid charge-sheet

against the accused, drew the spot mahazar at Ex.P2 and

conducted the inquest mahazar at Ex.P8, these are the

evidence appreciated by the trial Court and the entire

evidence available on record has led conjunctively to the

only inference that can be drawn is the guilt of the

accused. Therefore the very accused Kavitha threw the

child into the Suvarnamukhi river with an intention to

killing the child knowing fully that the child of two months

of age would drown in the river and die, as the accused

thought that the child was suffering with breathing

problem and epilepsy and she had no enough milk to feed

that child. Therefore, the prosecution has facilitated the

evidence and has successfully proved its allegation made

against the accused. The same has been appreciated by

the trial Court while rendering a conviction for the offence

punishable under section 302 of IPC and several citations

were also stated in the impugned judgment at para

Nos.44, 45, 46, 47 and 48. Therefore, in this appeal, it

does not call for any interference and no warranting

circumstances would arise for intervention, re-appreciation

of the evidence and also re-visiting the impugned judgment

of conviction rendered by the trial Court and more over,

the child of two months' age was thrown into the river

merely because the child was suffering with respiratory

problem and also epilepsy, these are all the evidence which

have been forthcoming on part of the prosecution. The

accused is none other than the mother of the deceased

child aged of two months. Therefore, in this appeal, it does

not call for any interference and there is no perversity and

illegality noticed in the impugned judgment of conviction

and consequently, the appeal deserves to be rejected being

devoid of merits. On these premises, learned Addl. SPP

appearing for State is seeking for dismissal of this appeal.

10. We have gone through the entire evidence of

the prosecution i.e., PW.1 to PW.15 and so also material

documents, but strangely, the trial Court has given more

credentiality to the evidence of PW.14 - Dr.Rudramurthy

who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued

postmortem report at Ex.P14 and opined that the death

was due to asphyxia as a result of drowning and more

credentiality is given to the evidence of PW.15 -

S.Muniraju being an IO, who conducted investigation,

recorded the voluntary statement of the accused at Ex.P16

and based upon her voluntary statement, conducted spot

panchanama at Ex.P2, inquest mahazar at Ex.P8 and also

recorded statement of witnesses.

11. PW.1 - Manjunatha is the author of the

complaint at Ex.P1 and he did not withstood the

averments made in the complaint and even PW.5, PW.6

and PW.7 who are the panch witnesses have been secured

and in their presence, panchanama has been drawn by

PW.15 at Ex.P8. But they did not support the case of

prosecution to any extent and the same has been seen in

their evidence itself. Ex.P2 - spot panchanama has been

drawn by PW.15 being an IO in the presence of PW.7 -

Adinarayana and PW.12 - Hanumantharayappa. However,

the entire case has been revolving around the evidence of

PW.3 - Dr.Mallikarjunaiah who provided treatment to the

deceased child, which was brought by PW.1 and also his

wife Kavitha, who is arraigned as an accused, as the child

was suffering with respiratory problem and also epilepsy

and more so, Kavitha being the mother of the child was not

getting adequate milk to feed her child. These are the

things as according to the theory of the prosecution that

the accused Kavitha was having an intention to throw that

baby into the Suvarnamukhi river by the side of

Koratagere town on 24.08.2016. Even prior to the child

aged of two months, the aforesaid Kavitha, being arraigned

as an accused, had given birth to a child who is aged of six

years, at the time the criminal law was set into motion by

receipt of a complaint at Ex.P1 by PW.1 - Manjunatha.

PW.9, who is also subjected to examination on the part of

the prosecution, being secured as a witness and in whose

presence, inquest proceedings were held over the dead

body of child aged of two months at Ex.P8 and whose

statement was recorded as per Ex.P10 at the time of

inquest held over the dead body whereby PW.1 -

Manjunatha who was secured by the Investigating Agency

by telephonical information to him on 24.08.2016 at

around 9.00 p.m. that he has told that he and accused

had taken the child to Renuka Hospital at Koratagere as

there was some respiratory problem to the child and the

Doctor who had examined the child, told the parents of the

child to get the blood test of the child done and after giving

the blood for blood test as per the advice made by Doctor -

PW.3 - Dr.Mallikarjunaiah, they had returned to the

hospital and at around 3.00 p.m., the accused Kavitha

gone out along with the child aged two months and when

she did not return, PW.1 - Manjunatha searched for them

everywhere. At about 6.30 p.m., when Manjunatha went

to Koratagere bus stand area, he noticed his wife Kavitha

sitting there and when he questioned her about the child,

she told him that somebody closed her mouth and took

away the child and the jewelry. Later he along with his

wife, went to the police station and informed the police,

then the PSI asked her to show the place where the alleged

incident took place and the PSI along with his staff were

taken to the spot, again when the accused Kavitha was

questioned to tell the truth, the accused told that she does

not get enough milk to feed the baby aged of two months

and that baby was suffering with respiratory problem and

also epilepsy. Therefore, at about 4.00 p.m., she took the

child aged of two months to the river side near a house

situated in Koratagere and threw the child into the river

and by saying so, she took the complainant and the police

to the aforesaid spot and there they found the baby

floating in the river and had died. Though this theory has

been put on the part of the prosecution, but PW.1 -

Manjunatha, who is the author of the complaint - Ex.P1,

by securing certain information about the child of two

months from his wife - accused Kavitha and thereafter

initiated criminal prosecution against the accused by filing

complaint at Ex.P1, but PW.1 has turned around and he is

treated as hostile to the case of the prosecution as he has

stated in his evidence that he does not know how the child

had died and he has not given any statement to the police

regarding the death of the child, but he has specifically

admitted in his evidence that he is the husband of the

accused and hence it is clear that he wants to hide the

truth. Thus if other evidence proves the prosecution case,

the hostilities of these witnesses were also appreciated by

the trial court, but not proved fatal to the case of the

prosecution. This was also an observation made by the

trial Court while assessing the evidence of PW.1, PW.14

and PW.15, but the entire case is rested on circumstantial

evidence and that each circumstance should be

established by the prosecution without giving any room to

doubt.

12. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to refer to

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

LALIT KUMAR & Others vs. SUPERINTENDENT &

REMEMBRANCER reported in AIR 1989 SC 2134,

wherein it is held that the power of an Appellate Court to

review evidence in appeals against acquittal is as extensive

as its power in appeals against convictions, but Appellate

Court should always be re-appreciating the evidence and

revisiting the entire evidence as well as marking of the

documents on their part to prove the guilt against the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt. But, in the instant

case, the Trial Court has given more credentiality to the

evidence of PW.3, PW.14 and PW.15. Therefore, it is

deemed appropriate to refer to section 3 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872.

13. Even last seen theory requires corroboration.

Accused persons cannot be convicted solely on the basis of

the evidence of last seen together with the deceased and it

was extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India in a judgment of AIR 2018 SC 2027 in the case of

NAVANEETHAKRISHNAN vs. STATE, By Inspector of

Police.

14. In case of circumstantial evidence, the onus

lies upon the prosecution to prove the complete chain of

events which shall undoubtedly point towards guilt of the

accused. It was also extensively addressed by the

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

reported in AIR 2012 SC 2435 in the case of

SAHADEVAN vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU.

15. It is relevant to refer to one more judgment in

the case of WAKKAR vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

reported in 2011 Crl.L.J. 1639, the principle for basing a

conviction on the basis of the circumstantial evidence is

that each and every incriminating circumstance must be

clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and

the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events

from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt

of the accused can be safely drawn and no other

hypothesis against the guilt is possible.

16. Insofar as the circumstantial evidence on the

part of the prosecution, it is the duty of the Court to

scrutinize the evidence carefully and to see that acceptable

evidence is accepted and the same is extensively addressed

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment in

the case of STATE OF GUJARAT v. GANDABHAI

GOVINDBHAI reported in of 2000 Crl.L.J 92 (Gujarat).

17. Where there are material contradictions

creating some reasonable doubt in a reasonable mind,

such eyewitnesses cannot be relied upon to base their

evidence in the conviction of accused and this view is

expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

NATHIA vs. STATE OF RAJASTAN reported in 1999

Crl.L.J. 1371 (Rajastan).

18. These are all the reliances which are required

in the instant appeal, preferred by the appellant / accused

being gravamen of the accusation, while re-appreciating

the evidence on record and so also revisiting the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence. In the

instant case, though the prosecution has examined PW.1

to PW.15 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P16, but the trial

Court has given more credentiality to the evidence of PW.3

- Dr.Mallikarjunaiah, who had provided treatment to the

child aged of two months and evidence of PW.14 -

Dr.Rudramurthy who conducted autopsy over the dead

body of the child aged of two months and PW.15 -

S.Muniraju, being an Investigating Officer who conducted

entire investigation and laid charge-sheet against the

accused and on basis of the evidence of those witnesses,

the trial Court has arrived at the conclusion that the

prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt, which view, in the instant

appeal, requires to be re-appreciated and the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence requires to

be revisited. If re-appreciation as well as revisiting the

impugned judgment is not done by this Court, certainly

there shall be some substantial miscarriage of justice

against the accused being a gravamen of accusations.

Therefore, it is deemed to be appropriate to state that merit

of the statement is important. It is well known principle of

law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement of

a witness if the court comes to the conclusion that the said

statement is the true and also correct version of the case of

the prosecution. It was also extensively addressed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of RAJA vs.

STATE reported in (1997) 2 Crimes 175.

19. Similarly the Court is always expected of

quality of evidence and not the quantity of evidence and

this aspect also has been addressed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India extensively in a judgment in the

case of STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH vs. KISHANPAL

reported in 2008 (8) JT 650. Even section 134 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 it is envisaged that it is the

quality and not the quantity which determines the

adequacy of evidence. It was also extensively addressed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment in the

case of LAXMIBAI (Dead) Through LRs. V.

BHAGWANTBURA (Dead) Through LRs. reported in AIR

2013 SC 1204.

20. In the instant case, the importance of

corroboration of the evidence which was facilitated by the

prosecution, it must be positive, cogent, consistent and

probabalized that the accused had committed the murder

of the deceased. But in the instant case, Kavitha who is

none other than the mother of the deceased baby aged two

months, though the prosecution in their case put on trial

of this accused, subjected examination of PW.1 to PW.15,

but no worthwhile evidence has been facilitated by the

prosecution for securing the conviction of the accused for

the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Therefore, in this appeal it requires intervention. If not

intervened by re-appreciation of evidence and also

revisiting judgment of conviction and order of sentence,

certainly there shall be some substantial miscarriage of

justice to the accused, who is gravamen of the

accusations.

21. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and

findings, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves

consideration keeping in view the grounds urged and also

referring the evidence which is contended by the learned

counsel for the appellant and more so there are

substances in the contentions made by the learned

counsel for the appellant seeking setting aside of the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by

the trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be

allowed.

22. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to

pass the following:-

ORDER

i) The appeal preferred by the appellant /

accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.

ii) Consequently, the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence rendered by the learned

IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri, in

S.C.No.5051/2016 dated 22.07.2017 is hereby set-aside.

iii) Consequent upon setting aside the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the

appellant / accused is acquitted of the offence punishable

under Section 302 of IPC which was charged against her.

iv) The fine amount, if any, deposited by the

appellant / accused shall be returned to her, on due

identification. Accordingly, it is ordered.

v) Registry of this Court is directed to forward

copy of the operative portion of the judgment to the

concerned Jail authority with a direction to release the

appellant/accused forthwith, if she is not required in any

other case. Accordingly, it is directed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bss