(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
2. The appellant was the sole accused and the
respondent-State was the complainant before the trial Court.
henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.
3. Accused was tried and convicted for the offence
Vidhyarthi (DW1). The accused, being the driver of a lorry,
and used to assault his wife. In the year 2016, DW1 purchased
Rs.1.00 lakh to him, which was given by the accused. In that
deceased and on 14.4.2017 at 11:15 p.m. in their house, the
which, the deceased breathed her last. Hence, PW1 lodged a
complaint on 15.4.2017 at 1:00 a.m. against the accused. A
the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
4. After initiation of the charge-sheet, the committal
to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial Court on hearing
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. As the accused
denied the charge, the trial was conducted. In support of the
P34 and MOs.1 to 8 were marked. The trial Court examined the
5. On hearing the parties, the trial Court by the
for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-.
6. The trial Court held that the charge against the
evidence and recovery of axe at the instance of the accused.
Submissions of Sri Harish Kumar M.C., learned counsel
for the appellant/accused:
7. The trial Court committed an error in convicting the
accused without appreciating the entire evidence on record.
other witnesses. The accused is falsely implicated in the case.
and there is no material to connect the accused to the crime.
evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses. The alleged mahazar
of the witnesses. He further contended that injuries sustained
MO1 and the time of death is not proved by the prosecution.
prosecution version. There is delay in registering an F.I.R. and
the delay is not explained. The F.I.R. was registered after
completion of investigation, which is not permissible in law.
basis of conjecture and surmises and is not sustainable in law.
II of IPC. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal.
2. Virender v. State (NCT) of Delhi, reported in
(2002) 3 SCC 341.
Submissions of Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent-State:
8. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 shows that the accused
had ill-will with the deceased in respect of amount paid to DW1.
Thus, on the day of the alleged incident, the accused scuffled
with the deceased, assaulted her with axe-MO1 on her left
portion of the neck and back, and caused four injuries, i.e., left
posterior aspect of ear, lacerated wound on right backside of
head, and incised wound on thoracic region (two injuries).
Further, the children of the accused and the deceased, i.e.
PWs.1 to 3, who are eyewitnesses to the incident, have clearly
and consistently stated about the manner of assault made by
the accused on the deceased. They have also stated that soon
after the incident, they took their father, i.e. the accused, to
the Police Station and handed over him to the Police and they
have also stated about drawing of mahazar in their presence.
She further contended that the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is
corroborated by the medical evidence and PW8-Dr. Lingaraju
has clearly stated that he conducted autopsy on the dead body
of the deceased and found four injuries and opined that the
death of the deceased was due to hypovolumic and neurogenic
shock as a result of injuries by axe. Further, the Investigating
Officer seized bloodstained shirt-MO6 of the accused,
bloodstained nighty-MO7 of the deceased, bloodstained axe-
MO1 and bloodstained gunnybag-MO2, which were sent to the
FSL. As per the FSL report, these articles were stained with
human blood with 'O' group. Hence, the oral testimonies of
PWs.1 to 3 are supported by the medical and the scientific
evidence. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order does
not warrant interference of this Court. Thus, she prayed to
dismiss the appeal.
9. On considering the submissions of both side and on
examination of the material on record, the point that arises for
consideration of this Court is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence is sustainable?"
ANALYSIS
10. The case of the prosecution was based on:
i. Motive;
ii. The evidence of eyewitnesses/PWs.1 to 3;
iii. Medical evidence; and
iv. Forensic evidence and the evidence of the Police officials.
Reg: Motive:
11. In a murder case, motive is the underlying reason
that drives the act. While motive is not a legal requirement for
conviction, especially when direct evidence is strong, it plays a
significant, often psychological role in strengthening the case of
the prosecution. Proof of motive provides additional support to
findings of guilt, helping to connect the accused to the crime. If
the eyewitness account is clear, reliable, and inspires
confidence, the absence of motive is often considered
irrelevant.
12. In the light of the above proposition, we have
examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. As per the
case of the prosecution, the accused was a lorry driver by
profession. He handed over a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh to his wife,
i.e. the deceased. In turn, the deceased handed over the said
amount to her son, DW1-Vidhyarthi, for purchase of second-
hand lorry. Hence, the accused was harassing the deceased
mentally and physically. On the ill-fated day, the accused
scuffled with the deceased, assaulted her with axe on her neck
and back and thereby, caused her death.
13. In this regard, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3,
who are eyewitnesses and children of the accused and the
deceased. They have clearly stated that they are none other
than the children of the accused and the deceased. DW1 is also
one of their brothers. Prior to the incident, the accused was
working as a lorry driver and he owned a lorry. There were
frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased.
During such time, the accused used to stay outside the house.
They further stated that on 14.4.2017 at 4:00 p.m., the
accused picked up quarrel with the deceased and threatened
her that he would eliminate her, if she fails to repay
Rs.1.00 lakh to him, which was given to her son, DW1. On the
same night between 10:30 p.m. and 11:15 p.m., the accused
again came to the house, insisted the deceased to pay the
money and as she tried to console him, he picked up axe-MO1,
which was kept under the Godrej Almirah and assaulted on her
neck and back. Nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the oral
testimonies of PWs.1 to 3. Hence, the aspect of motive is
proved and the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses regarding
motive was rightly found credible by the trial Court.
- 10 -
Reg: The evidence of eyewitnesses/PWs.1 to 3:
14. In this case, the prosecution mainly rely on
eyewitnesses account. Eyewitness testimony holds significant
evidentiary value, providing direct evidence. The evidence of
eyewitness requires the Courts to scrutinise factors like
consistency, threats, and delays, though minor discrepancies
do not automatically invalidate the entire account. However,
the Courts often seek corroborating evidence to the evidence of
eyewitness account. In essence, eyewitness testimony is
powerful, but it requires careful judicial appreciation, balancing
its direct insight with the known limitations of human
perception and memory. The admissibility of eyewitness
statement is based on the presumption that the witness
speaking under oath is truthful, unless it is proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the testimonies are untruthful and
unreliable.
15. In this background, let us examine the evidence of
the eyewitnesses. As per the prosecution, the accused (father
of PWs.1 to 3) was harassing the deceased (mother) on silly
reasons. The deceased paid Rs.1.00 lakh to her son, DW1, for
purchase of second-hand lorry by collecting the amount from
the accused, but DW1 failed to repay the said amount and
- 11 -
hence, the accused further ill-treated the deceased. On the
date of the incident, PW1 and the deceased were in the house,
PWs.2 and 3 were sleeping in the house of their grand-mother,
which is adjacent to their house and DW1 was in Bengaluru.
16. To substantiate the same, the prosecution relied on
the evidence of PW1. He has stated that he is the son of the
accused and the deceased. His father, i.e. the accused, since
beginning was harassing his mother, i.e. the deceased, for silly
reasons. His mother made the accused to provide financial
assistance to DW1 and accordingly, the accused paid a sum of
Rs.1.00 lakh to DW1 for purchase of second-hand lorry,
however, DW1 failed to repay the said amount to the accused.
On account of this, the accused was ill-treating the deceased.
He further stated that they have constructed the house in the
site of their maternal grand-mother, Sharadamma (CW5) and
their house is adjacent to the house of Sharadamma. He used
to sleep in his house along with the accused and the deceased.
His brothers, i.e. PWs.2 and 3, used to sleep in the house of
Sharadamma. He further stated that on the date of incident, his
brother, DW1, was in Bengaluru. On 14.4.2017, at about
4:00 p.m., the accused quarrelled with the deceased for
repayment of Rs.1.00 lakh, which was given to DW1. Thus, the
- 12 -
accused made criminal intimidation to eliminate the deceased,
if the amount of Rs.1.00 lakh is not paid and he proceeded to
the market. Later, the accused came back to his house and
between 10:30 and 11:00 p.m., he started quarrelling again
with the deceased for repayment of money and stated that,
since she is the root cause for all problem and if she is finished,
all problems would be resolved and by saying so, he picked up
axe-MO1, kept under the Godrej Almirah, and assaulted on left
portion of her neck. Thus, PW1 held the hands of the accused,
but the accused pushed him. Hence, PW1 screamed and at
that time, PWs.2 and 3 came there and neighbour Shailesh-
PW7, his grand-mother (CW5) and Shashikala (CW6) also
followed them. When PWs.2 and 3 caught hold of the accused,
even then, the accused again assaulted the deceased with axe
on her back. Hence, the deceased suffered bleeding injuries.
His further evidence is that, immediately, PW7 brought Omni
Maruti van and CWs.5 and 6 also accompanied him to shift the
deceased to the Government Hospital and PWs.1 to 3 took the
accused to the Police Station and later, he came to know that
his mother was dead, when she was taken to the Hospital. He
further stated that on the same night, the Police came to the
house, tied tape around the house, locked the house, took
- 13 -
photographs vide Ex.P2, drew spot mahazar vide Ex.P3 and
seized MOs.1 to 5, i.e. axe, gunnybag, box containing dry blood
oozing from the dead body, bloodstained pieces of cement, and
without bloodstained pieces of cement, respectively. He further
stated that on the same night, between 2:00 and 2:30 p.m.,
the Police called him to the Police Station and seized the shirt
of the accused under seizure mahazar vide Ex.P19. According
to PW1, the accused assaulted his mother with axe and
committed her murder.
17. PW1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for
the accused. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the
accused owned a lorry and was working as a driver of the lorry
and often, he used to quarrel with the deceased. Whenever he
used to quarrel with the deceased, he used to sleep outside the
house and sometimes, inside the house. He categorically
denied the suggestion that the deceased was suspecting the
accused whenever the accused slept outside the house and in
this regard, the deceased had filed application before the
Santhvaana Kendra against the accused, wherein, the deceased
was advised. He specifically stated that the accused was
advised by Santhvaana Kendra. He further denied the
suggestion that the deceased made the accused to give money
- 14 -
to DW1 for purchase of second-hand lorry and failed to repay
the same, and the deceased had mortgaged her gold when
finance people came to seize the lorry of DW1, as the deceased
stood as a guarantor. However, he admitted that their house is
at a distance of 30 feet from the house of their grand-mother
(CW5).
18. He further stated that the accused was quarrelling
with the deceased as DW1 did not pay the money and the
deceased was not having any other source of income, except
the income derived from her salary as she was working in
Cashew Nuts Factory. He further stated that on the date of
incident, between 3:30 and 4:30 p.m., there was quarrel
between the accused and the deceased in respect of money.
He further stated that the accused used to quarrel with the
deceased frequently and he used to always show machete and
axe during quarrel. He further admitted that after hearing the
hue and cry of the deceased, neighbours did not come to his
house as it was routine. However, when the accused was
assaulting the deceased with axe, he did not try to snatch the
axe, but he tried to hold his father's hand.
- 15 -
19. In order to corroborate the oral testimony of PW1,
the prosecution examined PW2-Arjun, another eyewitness, who
is also the son of the accused and the deceased. He has stated
that the accused killed the deceased. Since beginning, the
accused was harassing the deceased for silly reasons. He
further stated that the deceased made the accused to part with
Rs.1.00 lakh to DW1 for purchase of second-hand lorry,
however, he could not repay it and hence, the accused ill-
treated her. He further stated that on 14.4.2017, between
11:30 and 11:45 p.m., when PW3 and himself were about to
sleep in the house of CW5, they heard hue and cry from their
house. Thus, PW3 and himself went there and saw the
deceased with bleeding injuries and the accused was holding
axe-MO1. When they went to hold the accused, again the
accused assaulted the deceased on her back. As a result, the
deceased fell down in the pool of blood. Thus, PWs.1, 3 and
himself caught hold of the accused and immediately, CWs.5, 6
and PW7 came there. PW7 brought his Maruti Omni van and
CWs.5 and 6 took the deceased to the Government Hospital,
Hosanagara. PWs.1, 3 and himself took the accused to the
Police Station and later, he came to know about the death of
- 16 -
his mother. Thus, it is clear evidence of PW2 that the accused
assaulted his mother with axe.
20. PW2 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for
the accused and in the cross-examination, nothing was brought
on record to discredit his testimony, his presence at the time of
the incident and he trying to hold the accused while assaulting
the deceased and later, his brothers and himself taking the
accused to the Police Station. All other suggestions made by
the learned counsel for the accused were denied by PW2.
21. In order to corroborate the oral testimonies of PWs.1
and 2, the prosecution examined PW3-Abhinandhan, who is
also an eyewitness to the incident and the son of the accused
and the deceased. In his evidence, he has reiterated the
testimonies of PWs.1 and 2 and corroborated their evidence.
22. By looking into the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, it appears
that on 14.4.2017 at about 4:00 p.m., the accused started
quarrelling with the deceased in respect of non-payment of
amount of Rs.1.00 lakh given to her and the accused also made
criminal intimidation to eliminate her, if she does not repay the
amount and he left the house. Again on the same day, between
10:00 p.m. and 12 midnight, the accused started scuffling with
- 17 -
the deceased stating that she is the cause for the problem and
if she is eliminated, all problems will be solved and by saying
so, he took axe, kept under the Godrej Almirah, and assaulted
on her neck. Hence, PW1 tried to stop the accused and
screamed, at that time, PWs.2 and 3 came there and
neighbours Shailesh (PW7) and Hiriyanna (CW8), and grand-
mother, Sharadamma (CW5) also followed them. When PWs.1
to 3 tried to stop the accused, even at that time, the accused
assaulted the deceased on her back. Then, they all caught hold
of the accused and the deceased was retching from bleeding
injuries. Hence, PW7 along with CWs.5 and 6 shifted the
deceased to the Government Hospital and they took the
accused to the Police Station. Later, they came to know that
their mother was dead.
23. To corroborate the oral testimonies of PWs.1 to 3, the
prosecution examined independent witness, Shailesh-PW7, who
has stated that he is the neighbour of the accused and the
deceased. There were frequent quarrels between the accused
and the deceased. On 14.4.2017 between 11:15 p.m. and
11:45 p.m., when he was watching T.V. in his house, he heard
sound from the house of the accused and the deceased.
Hence, he rushed to their house, the deceased was lying in the
- 18 -
pool of blood, and the accused was holding axe-MO1, and
PWs.1 to 3 were holding the accused. Hence, he immediately
shifted the deceased in his Omni Maruti van to the Government
Hospital, Hosanagara, along with Sharadamma (CW5) and
Shashikala (CW6), where the Doctor declared the deceased
brought dead. He further stated that the alleged incident
occurred in respect of non-payment of amount by the
deceased. In the cross-examination, nothing has been brought
on record to disbelieve the testimonies of PWs.1 to 3 and 7 and
there were no infirmities in their evidence, so also their
presence at the scene of occurrence. Therefore, the prosecution
can claim conviction based on their testimonies alone. The
evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and 7, being eyewitnesses to the
incident, remains unimpeachable and has been believed by the
trial Court. Their evidence cannot be discarded only for the
reason that they are the children of the accused and the
deceased. Further, the location of the dead body, as mentioned
by PW6-Chandrashekara B.E., Assistant Engineer, PWD, is
undoubtedly corroborated by the sketch-Ex.P23 and inquest
report-Ex.P28.
24. Perusal of evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and 7 goes to show
that their testimonies are of paramount importance. Their
- 19 -
testimonies are deemed wholly reliable, credible, consistent
with each other and unimpeachable. There was no delay in
reporting the case to the Police. PWs.1 to 3 themselves handed
over their father to the Police. PWs.1 to 3 are not interested
witnesses, as they are the children of the accused and the
deceased. There was no animosity between PWs.1 to 3 and the
accused. Their testimonies are corroborated with independent
witness, PW7. If we weigh the oral testimonies of PWs.1 to 3
and 7 alongside forensic and other circumstantial evidence, it
satisfies the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Reg: Medical evidence:
25. Further, the prosecution relied on the medical
evidence. PW8-Dr. Lingaraju conducted Post-Mortem
examination on the dead body of the deceased and issued the
report as per Ex.P25. As per the evidence of PW8 and Ex.P25,
the deceased had suffered the following external injuries:-
1. Left posterior aspect of ear measuring
12 c.m. x 3 c.m.
2. Lacerated wound on right backside of
head measuring 7 x 3 c.m.
3. Incised wound on thoracic region (two
injuries)
a. 13 X 3 c.m. and 9 c.m. big
b. 10 X 3 X 9 c.m. deep.
- 20 -
Apart from external injuries, the Doctor also found
internal injuries, viz., depressed fracture on left occipital
region 5 x 3 c.m., injury to thoracic spinal bones T2 10-
12 bones and fragment fractures.
The Doctor opined that the death was due to hypovolumic
and neurogenic shock as a result of sustained injuries by
axe-MO1.
26. The Doctor underwent intensive cross-examination by
the learned counsel for the accused to explore as to under what
circumstances oozing of blood would occur. However, nothing
could be elicited during the course of cross-examination of
Doctor so as to falsify his version. Learned counsel also tried to
demonstrate that there is discrepancy in examining the weapon
of offence, i.e. axe-MO1, but the defence could not elicit that
there was no nexus between the injuries and axe-MO1. Even in
the evidence of other witnesses, no other probable theory of
death was elicited. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in
holding that the death was homicidal.
Reg: Forensic evidence and the evidence of the Police
officials:
27. In so far as recovery of incriminating article is
concerned, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW9-
Manjunath, who has stated that on 15.4.2017, he had been to
- 21 -
Hosanagara Police Station in the morning, at that time, the
accused was in the custody of the Police and Abhinandhan
(PW3-son of the accused and the deceased) was also present,
at that time, the Police seized bloodstained shirt of the
accused-MO6 under seizure panchanama-Ex.P19 and the Police
took photographs vide Ex.P18.
28. PW10-Surendra has stated that on 15.4.2017, the
Police conducted spot panchanama vide Ex.P3 in his presence
and seized MOs.1 to 5, i.e. axe, gunnybag, box containing dry
blood oozing from the dead body, bloodstained pieces of
cement, and without bloodstained pieces of cement,
respectively, and the Police took photographs vide Exs.P5 to
P14.
29. PW13-Manjunath M., Investigating Officer, has stated
that he conducted investigation and during the course of
investigation, he arrested the accused, seized bloodstained
shirt of the accused under mahazar-Ex.P19 and conducted
spot-cum-seizure mahazar-Ex.P3 and seized MOs.1 to 5 and
sent the seized articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory for
examination.
- 22 -
30. PW13-Investigating Officer, soon after the seizure of
articles under Exs.P3 and P19, sent the same to the FSL for
chemical examination and report. PW4-Dr. Chayakumari,
Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Davanagere,
deposed that on 19.4.2017, she received seven sealed articles
from the Investigating Officer for chemical examination and
report. Thus, she opened the sealed cover, which contained the
shirt, axe, gunnybag, box containing dry blood oozing from the
dead body, box containing dry bloodstain pieces of cement, box
containing without bloodstain pieces of cement, shirt of the
accused and the nighty of the deceased. She examined those
materials i.e., scrapings, mud samples, cuttings from the
suspected areas were tested for blood by presumptive tests
namely benzedine, phenolphthalein, leuko malachite-green
tests. The presence of bloodstains was further confirmed by
conducting Microscopic Test. The extent of the stains, their size
and location were also noted. After conducting detailed
examination, she was of the opinion that the articles sent to
her viz., shirt, axe, gunnybag, dry blood scrapings,
bloodstained cement pieces and the nighty were stained with
'O' group blood. She also conducted serology and as per her
report, Item Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 (MOs.6, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7,
- 23 -
respectively), were stained with human blood and it is 'O' group
blood.
31. Thus, MO6-shirt of the accused was stained with 'O'
group blood. Therefore, the accused ought to have explained
how his shirt was stained with 'O' group blood. It is not the
case of the accused that his blood is also of 'O' group. The
accused has not offered any explanation as to how his shirt was
stained with 'O' group blood.
32. The evidence of eyewitnesses which is consistent and
credible cannot be discarded on the ground of insignificant
contradictions in their testimonies and in view of the fact that
PWs.1 to 3 are sons of the accused and the deceased. PWs.1 to
3 are the eyewitnesses, who were present at the time of the
incident, and throughout their lengthy cross-examination, they
have not shaken their credibility. The accused has not raised
any doubt as to the presence of PWs.1 to 3 at the scene of
occurrence and at the time of incident. Thus, the trial Court
based on the oral and documentary evidence on record,
recovery, medical evidence and the FSL report rightly convicted
the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
IPC.
- 24 -
33. In so far as the sentence is concerned, the learned
counsel for the accused argued that as the occurrence had
taken place without any premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the
heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel, the accused
committed the offence and thus, he is entitled to the benefit of
Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. Learned counsel further
contended that the accused did not have any intention to cause
death of his wife, as there were only three blows on the body of
the deceased, which are neither cruel nor unusual to disprove
him the benefit of the aforesaid Exception.
34. To avail the benefit of Exception 4, the defence is
required to probabilise that the offence was committed without
premeditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, upon a
sudden quarrel and the offender had not taken any undue
advantage and the offender had not acted in cruel or unusual
manner. Exception is based on the principle that in the absence
of premeditation and on account of total deprivation of safe
control, but on account of heat of passion, the offence was
committed, which the normal man of sober urges would not
resort to. Sudden fight, though not defined under the Act,
implies mutual provocation. It has been held by the Courts that
a fight is not per se palliating circumstance and only
- 25 -
unpremeditated fight is such. The time gap between the quarrel
and the fight is an important consideration to decide the
applicability of the incident. If there intervenes sufficient time
for passion to subside, giving the accused time to come to
normalcy and the fight takes place thereafter, the killing would
be murder, but if the time gap is not sufficient, the accused
may be held entitled to the benefit of this Exception.
35. In the instant case, concededly, there was enmity
between the accused and the deceased in respect of non-
payment of cash of Rs.1.00 lakh which was given to their son,
DW1-Vidhyarthi, and there is allegation by the prosecution that
before the occurrence, the accused had premeditated at
4.00 p.m. and on the same day, during night hours, the
accused murdered his wife. As noted earlier, occurrence took
place when the deceased, who conceded that in a couple of
days, she would repay the amount. Thus, the accused
immediately took axe-MO1 and assaulted her on the neck and
back in the presence of their sons. Thus, the accused had clear
intention to eliminate the deceased for non-payment of cash of
Rs.1.00 lakh. Therefore, the time gap between the quarrel and
the fight is stated to be long gap. So, Exception 4 to Section
300 of IPC is not amenable to the accused.
- 26 -
36. Harping back to the case of the prosecution for
analysing the circumstances that gave rise to the occurrence of
the incident, as per the evidence of PW1, the deceased never
provoked the accused. But PWs.1 to 3 have clearly stated that
the accused threatened his wife to eliminate her. These
circumstances make it amply clear that there was no
provocation by the deceased so as to say that the accused lost
control over himself.
37. The case can be examined with reference to the
nature of the injuries suffered by the deceased. Ex.P25 is the
Post-Mortem report given by PW8-Doctor and the deceased
sustained the injuries, i.e. 1. Left posterior aspect of ear
measuring 12 cms x 3 cms, 2. Lacerated wound on right vertex
7 x 3 cms, and 3. Incised wound on thoracic region two in nos.
(1. 13 x 3 cm and 9 cm deep and 10 x 3 x 9 cms deep). The
Doctor has stated that the cause of death is due to
hypovolumic and neurogenic shock as a result of sustained
injuries by axe. As per his evidence, death might be possible
soon after sustaining injuries as mentioned in the Post-Mortem
report. Analysing of medical evidence of the whole case helps
to draw inference that intention of the accused was to eliminate
the deceased. Accordingly, the accused hit the deceased with
- 27 -
axe on her neck i.e. vital part and on her back on four
occasions and allowed her to die at the spot. The intention of
the accused is clear to takeaway the life. Thus, the trial Court
has rightly convicted the accused considering the oral
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, especially PWs.1 to 3
and 7, the evidence of PW8-Doctor, Ex.P25-Post-Mortem report
and Ex.P20-FSL report. Hence, we do not find any perversity in
the order of conviction passed by the trial Court and the same
is upheld. The sentence imposed by the trial Court
commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the same
also does not require any interference. Accordingly, we pass
the following
ORDER
Criminal appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KVK / MN
