This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hunsur, in S.C.No.248 of 2011 dated 27.09.2012 convicting the accused for offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and directing that he shall not be released till the rest of his life.

2. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under:

On 16.06.2011, at about 10.00 a.m., the accused is said to have taken his second child, namely Nishor from the maternal house of the complainant situated at Saraswathipuram Extension, Hunsur under the guise of purchasing eatables to the child. The accused had taken his son Nishor as well as his sister-in-law’s son Shishya to Maratha Community Hall which was under construction near Shanimahatma temple, Hunsur, and suspecting that his child Nishor aged 1 year 4 months was not born through him, made the child drink the water mixed with ‘Zidovudine’, ‘Lamivudine’ and ‘Nevirapine’ tablets, as a result of which the child died. Pursuant to the act of the accused, on filing of a complaint by the complainant, the crime came to be registered by the police against the accused. Subsequently, the case was taken up for investigation by the Investigating Officer who laid a charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The Trial Court had framed the charges against the accused wherein the accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate the case against the accused, the prosecution in all examined PW-1 to PW-21 and got marked several documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-14, apart from getting marked material objects namely, MO-1 and MO-2. Subsequently, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., where the accused had denied the incriminating evidence that appeared against him. He also did not lead defence evidence and had not adduced any documents for his defence.

3. The Trial Court, on hearing the arguments advanced by the counsel for the prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and on evaluating the entire evidence on record, had come to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused and convicted the accused for the offences under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and with a condition that he shall not be released till the rest of his life. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal urging various grounds.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and so also the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State.

5. On hearing the counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is,

“Whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with a condition that he shall not be released till the rest of his life?”

6. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Court below against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record and the same suffers from infirmities and illegalities. The judgment has been passed relying on inconsistent, interested and unreliable testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The Court below had erred in convicting the appellant though the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant was responsible for the death of the deceased. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that the prosecution has improved the case during the course of the trial.

It is the further contention of the learned counsel that the Court below has failed to notice that the prosecution has not proved the motive alleged against the appellant for committing the alleged offence. Further, it has failed to properly consider the fact that the seizure mahazar has not been prov