MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant herein is the convicted accused in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1999 by the Additional Sessions Court, Chitradurga for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that, accused 1 is the husband of accused 2 and father of accused 3. Deceased Thippaiah is the uncle of Accused 1. The house of the accused and deceased were adjoining each other. Deceased Thippaiah after dismantling his hut obtained permission for construction of the house from the Panchayath and was preparing to dig the foundation for the construction of the house on 22-9-1998 at Gejjiganahalli. On that day, at about 7. 30 p. m. Accused 1 picked up quarrel with the deceased on the ground that the deceased Thippaiah was encroaching upon his site. In the meanwhile, P. W. 1-Shanthamma came to the rescue of her husband thippaiah. Accused 2 and 3 also came to the spot. Accused 1 took the axe m. O. 1 from accused 2 assaulted on the head of deceased at the instigation of accused 2 and 3. As a result of the said assault, Thippaiah fell down after sustaining severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot.

( 3 ) P. W. 1 along with P. W. 3 and others of the village went to the Police station and lodged the complaint at 11. 00 p. m. on the very day as per Ex. P. 6 before P. W. 12-PSI of Thalak Police Station of Challakere Taluk. On the basis of the said complaint, P. W. 12 registered a case in Cr. No. 102 of 1998 against three accused including the appellant herein for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. FIR -Ex. P. 7 was sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate through police constable-P. W. 10. The concerned jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate First class received the said FIR at about 12. 30 a. m. (i. e. , 00. 30 hours) on 23-9-1998 (intervening night between 22-9-1998 and 23-9-1998 ). Accused was arrested on 23-11-1998 i. e. , after about two months of the incident. The inspector of Police (P. W. 14) filed the charge-sheet after investigation against all the three accused.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 302 of the IPC. Accused 2 and 3 were charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the IPC.

( 5 ) THE prosecution in order to prove its case, in all examined 14 witnesses and got marked 12 exhibits and 9 material objects. On behalf of the defence, neither any witness was examined nor any exhibit was got marked.

( 6 ) THE Trial Court after hearing, acquitted accused 2 and 3 and convicted accused 1 (appellant herein) for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 302 of the IPC. Accused 1 is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -.

( 7 ) THIS appeal is filed by the convicted accused through jail as an indigent person. Therefore, the Court requested Sri Bipin Hegde, Advocate to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.

( 8 ) HEARD Sri Bipin Hegde, Advocate and Sri Ramesh, learned High Court government Pleader for the State.

( 9 ) THE fact that the death of the deceased was homicidal is not in dispute. However, as can be seen from the evidence of P. W. 5-Doctor, coupled with the post-mortem report Ex. P. 3, it is clear that the deceased had sustained injuries on skull. The parietal bone of the deceased is fractured. The membranes and brain matter is protrouding out through the fractured bone. The doctor has opined that the death of the deceased is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury on vital part like brain. Thus, the evidence of p. W. 5-Doctor coupled with the evidence of eye-witness-P. W. 1 proves that the deceased died a homicidal death.

( 10 ) THE prosecution, in support of its case, mainly relies upon the evidence ofp. W. I who is the injured eye-witness to the incident. P. W. I is the wife of the deceased. She has deposed about the motive aspect as well as the incident in question. H

Click Here to Read the rest of this document