1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 07.02.2011, passed by the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, at Mysuru, (hence forth for brevity referred to as the ‘Sessions Court’) in S.C. No.229 of 2009, convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, the appellant has filed this appeal.

2. In his memorandum of appeal, the appellant has taken the contention that the Court below has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in their proper perspective and that it did not notice that, had the appellant any intention to commit the murder of the deceased, he would have tried to escape from the scene of offence. This shows that he was innocent and also was shocked like any other who were present in the place of occurrence. The inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were not appreciated by the Court below. It also ignored the fact that the injuries caused to the injured was not sufficient to cause her death. Stating that all these aspects have resulted in the Sessions Court passing an erroneous judgment of conviction, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence impugned in this appeal.

3. The respondent is being represented by learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor.

4. Lower Court records were called for and the same are placed before us.

5. Heard the arguments from both sides. Perused the material placed before us, including the memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and the lower Court records.

6. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that when deceased Smt. Chandralekha Gurjar was working in Sharada Vilas Pharmacy College at Mysuru, as Professor at the time of her death, the present appellant was the Manager in the very same college. On the date 10.6.2009, at about 10.00 a.m., when the complainant (PW-1) K.J. Hanumanthachar, the Principal of the said college had been to his college, while he was in his chambers, at about 11.00 a.m. on that day, PW-4 – Saraswathi, who was working as Group-D employee in the said college and CW-6 – Puneeth, informed him that the present appellant had stabbed Professor Chandralekha with a knife and that she is bloodshed. Immediately, the Principal rushed to the staff room where Mrs. Chandralekha was found in a pool of blood, sustaining injuries. At that time, PW-1 saw the accused coming out from the said room. Immediately, ambulance was summoned and the complainant informed the police.

7. Earlier to that, in the third week of April of that year, the accused had complained to the Principal that deceased Chandralekha had addressed him in a singular tense and that he would not spare her. He was properly advised by the Principal and other staff. Thereafter, a compromise between the deceased and the accused was reported to the Principal. On the date of the incident, the accused was about to be relieved from his services. Stating so in his complaint, the Principal has lodged a complaint with the complainant police, which was registered in the complaint police station on the very same day at 12.00 p.m. in their station at Crime No.57/2009, against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of the investigation, the complaint police filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Court framed charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

8. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was held against him, wherein, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses from its side from PWs.1 to 22 and got marked the documents from Exs.P-1 to P-25 and material objects from MOs.1 to 13. On behalf of the accused, no witnes