JUDGMENT :

The appellant is the sole accused in SC No.81/2012 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, sitting at Kanakapura, Ramanagara District, who was convicted vide judgment dated 06.12.2013 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-with default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months and also awarding an amount of Rs.8,000/-as compensation to PW.2 under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State. We have carefully evaluated the oral and documentary evidence on record.

3. Before adverting to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, we feel it just and necessary to have the brief factual matrix of this particular case.

4. The prosecution divulges its case narrating that, the accused and his wife Parvathamma were residents of Shettikeredoddi Village, Uyyamballi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk. The accused and deceased were residing together and they begot PW.2-Kumaraswamy as their son and Suma as daughter. It is alleged that, the accused was addicted to alcohol 10 years prior to the date of the incident. In this context, he was not taking care of the family, but he was demanding money often from the deceased. It is also alleged that, the accused was ill-treating and harassing the deceased in demand of money and in this regard, there were Panchayats held in the village. In spite of that, it did not heed any results.

5. It is the further case of the prosecution in the above said backdrop that, particularly on 24.03.2012, in the afternoon at about 1.30 p.m., when PW.2 and deceased were in their house, the accused came to the house and demanded money with the deceased and they started quarreling with each other and in fact, the accused went out of the house after abusing the deceased. Again he came back at 1.45 p.m. and started quarreling with his wife and demanded money for his vice habit of drinking. As the deceased did not provide any money, the accused took out a chopper, then the deceased ran away from the house, in spite of that, he chased her and assaulted her with the chopper on her neck and other parts of her body, which resulted in severe injuries to the deceased and she also succumbed to the injuries on the spot. This incident was actually seen by PW.2 and he in turn informed PW.1, who is none other than his maternal uncle. PW.1 then lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police, who registered a case in Crime No.33/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and after thorough investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the accused/appellant for the aforesaid offence. The accused was also arrested on 26.03.2012 and since then, he has been in judicial custody.

After securing the presence of the accused, particularly after committal proceedings, the Trial Court has framed charges against him for the aforesaid offence and put the accused on trial. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as 19 witnesses as PWs.1 to 19, got marked 17 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.17 and during the course of cross-examination of PW.2, Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked and MOs. 1 to 8 are the material objects marked during the prosecution evidence. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. As the accused did not chose to lead any defence evidence, the Trial Court after hearing both sides came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment was passed.

6. Sri B. Roopesha, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends before this Court that, except the evidence of PW.2, who is said to be the eyewitness, no other materials are available to inculpate the accused. So many other independent eyewitnesses, neighbourers of the deceased have