The burden of proof is always on the prosecution and only shifts to the accused when all probabilities establish the basic ingredients of the offence. Confession made to the police is not admissible and is considered weak evidence in a case based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

B.A. PATIL, J.

The appellant aggrieved by his conviction and sentence in S.C. No. 44/2015 dated 22.04.2016 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), is before us.

2. We have heard the learned senior counsel Sri S.S. Koti for Sri Srinand A Pachhapure, appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused. We have also heard the learned Additional SPP Sri V.M. Banakar, for the respondent-State.

3. The case in brief as averred by the complainant is that the daughter of the complainant was given in marriage to the accused-appellant, their marriage being performed on 11.04.2013. Thereafter the deceased and the accused started leading matrimonial life in the farmhouse situated in R.S. No. 35/1. Out of the wedlock they have begotten a daughter by name Chi. Srusthi. At that time, the accused was looking after the deceased well and after six months he started subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty, demanding her to bring cash and motorcycle as nothing has been given to him at the time of marriage. The said fact used to be told by the deceased to the complainant over phone. It is further averred in the complaint that the complainant and her relatives advised the accused not to ill treat and harass the deceased. Despite the same, the accused did not stop the said act of ill treatment and harassment towards the deceased. About a month prior to the alleged incident, the accused had beaten the deceased and he has sent her back to the parental house. On 12.02.2015 at about 9 AM the accused called the complainant over the phone and stated that there is “chowla ceremony” of his daughter and requested the complainant to send his daughter and the complainant advised the accused not to ill treat his daughter and sent her and his grand daughter to the house of the accused. Thereafter, on the same day at about 1 PM the accused called the complainant over phone saying that, he would kill his daughter. The complainant requested the accused not to do so. At that time, the call was ended. After one hour when the complainant called upon one Mahesh who is the villager of the accused over the phone and enquired, he told the complainant that the accused has strangulated his wife to death by tying her neck tightly with a rope. Immediately the complainant along with his relatives came to the house of the accused and saw the body of the deceased lying in the living room and found bleeding injuries over her head and a rope was tied around her neck.

On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No. 10/2015 of Amengad Police Station against the accused, his mother and sister. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused alone dropping his mother and sister. The committal Court took cognizance of the crime, secured presence of the accused and after following the procedure as contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C., committed the matter to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge. The trial Court secured the presence of the accused and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, charge was framed, read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and as such the trial was fixed.

4. In support of the case of the prosecution 31 witnesses have been examined and 46 documents so also two material objects were got marked. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded by putting incriminating materials as against him. He totally denied the incriminating materials on record, but has not led any defence evidence nor got marked any documents. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence came to be passed. Challenging the same, the appellant-accused is before this Court.

5. The main grounds urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant are that the judgment of the Court below is pervers