The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, and forensic reports in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases of intentional murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

1. The appellant is the sole accused, who preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgir in S.C.No.16/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short), wherein the trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and also awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- to PW-2–Ashamma.

2. The brief factual matrix of the case, as could be seen from the records are that, a person by name Saibanna who is none other than the maternal uncle of the accused and the deceased, has lodged a complaint as per Ex.P-7 which divulges the factual matrix of this case. It is an undisputed fact from the complaint averments Ex.P-7 that, the accused is no other than the elder brother of deceased Basalingappa. It is also there in the said complaint that they were all residing together under a common roof at Konkal village, Yadgir taluk and district. The accused and deceased family had 6 acres of land. The deceased was often demanding his legitimate share in the said land and the accused was telling him that there are some female folk in the house and after their marriage, deceased can seek for partition. In this context, there were some differences between the brothers. In this background, it is alleged that on 03.02.2010 in the night hours at about 2.30 a.m. when the deceased was sleeping in the house, the accused who was also in the said house, with an intention to do away with the life of deceased, took an axe and came to the place where the deceased was sleeping and assaulted on his head and caused severe injuries to the head of the deceased, and thereby the deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the said spot even leaving the axe in the house.

3. On the said complaint, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.14/2010 under Section 302 of IPC. The Investigating agency, after thorough investigation, laid a charge sheet against the accused for the above said offence. The learned District and Sessions Judge secured the presence of the accused, who was in custody, recorded the plea of the accused after framing a charge against him for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. As the accused pleaded not guilty, he was put on the trial.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as twelve witnesses and got marked thirteen documents as Exs.P 1 to P13 and material objects as M.O.s-1 to 9. The accused did not take any specific defence. The accused was also examined by the Court under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. After thorough examination of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra.

5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused has contended before this Court that, the witnesses who are examined before the Court particularly, the so-called eyewitnesses i.e., mother and sister of the accused are also the mother and sister of the deceased. They are related interested witnesses. Their evidence has not been scrutinized by the trial Court meticulously considering the contradictions and omissions. The trial Court has relied upon the evidence of interested witnesses and the so-called recovery at the instance of the accused which has not been properly established by the prosecution. Therefore, he submits before the Court that this Court has to look into the materials once again and has to come to the conclusion that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and hence he pleaded for acquitt