The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the testimony of a single vital witness, the daughter of the accused and the deceased, to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

N.K.SUDHINDRARAO, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the IV Additional District Judge at Gulbarga in S.C.No.73/2010 dated 28.07.2010 wherein appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC and was sentenced for imprisonment for two years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months simple imprisonment and to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, to under to simple imprisonment for three months.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The complaint dated 20.11.2009 was lodged by one Chandranna S/o Sharanappa. Sangeeta is his daughter. She was given in marriage to one Mallikarjun i.e. appellant-accused, ten years prior to the date of incident and their marital life was cordial for sometime and thereafter it disrupted. His son-in-law was addicted to alcohol and was demanding for money from his wife.

3. The family maintenance was looked after by Sangeeta by doing tailoring work. Cruelty, torture and beating her had been regular by the husband. About 20 days prior to the incident, as his daughter was not feeling well, she had come along with her husband to complainant’s home and the complainant took her to doctor for treatment. When Sangeeta recovered from her bad health i.e. on 14.11.2009 Saturday she went back to marital house along with the children. On 20.11.2009 at 7.30 a.m. when complainant was returning home, his son Nagendra informed him that Sangeeta was done to death by her husband Mallikarjun by hitting with an axe and murdered her. This matter was informed to his son by Shivakumar over phone. The complainant secured his wife, son Nagendra, relatives Bheemaraya, Sabanna, Tarikashappa, Sharanappa and went in a jeep to the house of Sangeeta and when they entered the house they saw her dead body lying in a pool of blood. The dead body was bearing sustained cut marks of axe and there was severe bleeding. On enquiry, he came to know that her daughter was washing utensils at 7.00 a.m. and Mallikarjun in drunken state, hit his wife with an axe twice, inflicting fatal shots and she was done to death.

4. On the basis of the above said complaint being lodged by the father of the deceased, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.132/2009 for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 302 of IPC.

5. The Investigating agency, after investigation, submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences. The learned District Judge secured the presence of the accused. After hearing before the charge, ordered for framing the charges against the accused under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC. As the accused pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial.

6. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as seventeen witnesses and got marked seventeen documents as Exs.P-1 to P-17 and produced M.O.s1 to 12. The accused did not adduce defence evidence. The accused was also examined by the Court under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution established the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Trial Judge convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC and acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC.

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

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused would contend before this Court that the evidence of PW8 the brother of the deceased would help to arrive at the conclusion that the dead body of Sangeeta was there lying in the house upto 5.30 and he wanted to drive a point that