The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and the errors in drawing conclusions based on presumption and assumption.

JUDGMENT

B.A.Patil, J. - The present appellant is before this Court assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Ballari in S.C. No.40/2015 dated 15.07.2016.

2. We have heard the learned counsel Sri.J.Basavaraj for the appellant accused and the learned Additional S.P.P. Sri.V.M.Banakar for the respondent State.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 02.02.2015 at about 09:00 a.m., the complainant, his parents, brother, sister had meals. Thereafter, the accused started quarrelling with his deceased wife Neelamma. The complainant and others pacified the quarrel and thereafter complainant went to the school. His sister and brother went to the land to pluck the chilly. At about 12:15 p.m., the complainant received a phone call that his mother is dead. Immediately he rushed to the house and found his mother lying in the kitchen and blood was oozing from her right ear and she had injury on right side lip, left elbow and found mark on the neck. On enquiry, with his younger brother, he came to know that at about 11:30 a.m. his brother and sister have returned from the field and when they opened the door, their mother was lying in the kitchen in supine position. When they tried to speak with her she did not respond and she was dead. Immediately they started crying and also noticed the injuries. On the basis of the information received, complaint came to be filed. On the basis of the complaint, crime came to be registered in Crime No.16/2015. Thereafter, after investigation charge sheet has been filed. The Committal Court committed the case to the Sessions Court and Sessions Court secured the presence of the accused and charge was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty, he claims to be tried and as such, trial was fixed.

4. To prove the case of the prosecution, it got examined 21 witnesses, marked 19 documents and 7 material objects. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded by putting incriminating material as against him and accused denied the same. He has not led any evidence nor got marked any documents. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Trial Court convicted the accused. Challenging the legality and correctness, the accused is before this Court.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence and materials placed on record. It is his further submission that all the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court only on presumption and assumption that the deceased died in the house, has came to a conclusion that it is the accused who had committed the murder of the deceased wife. It is his further submission that the motive has also not been established by the prosecution as to for what reasons they used to quarrel. It is his further submission that P.W.8 in her evidence has clearly stated that the accused had been to Siruguppa to bring the medicine. Inspite of that, the Trial Court ignoring the said evidence has taken hasty decision and has convicted the accused.

6. It is his further submission that though the recovery of the shirt of the accused has not been proved by substantiating the said fact with any evidence, the Trial Court only on the ground that the said shirt is stained with blood has linked to the accused and on the basis of such evidence, it has taken the decision to convict the accused though there is no material. It is his further submission that the Trial Court has taken the circumstance of abscondance of the accused. Abscondance of the accused till the date of arrest is not a criteria to convict the accused for an offence which is punishable with imprisonment for life or death. It is his further submission that neighbouring witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. Under such circumstances, the Trial Court ought to have given a benefit o