JUDGMENT :

Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J. - These two appeals arise from the judgment of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in S.C. No. 10/2014. Cri.A.No.1493/ 2015 is filed by accused No. 1 questioning the judgment of the trial court convicting him for the offences under section 302 and section 498A of IPC and the order of sentencing him in connection with said offences. Crl.A. No.881/ 2015 is filed by the State questioning the correctness of acquittal of accused No. 2 in relation to offence under section 498A of IPC.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

One Rajendrakumar alias Chandrappa/ PW-2 gave first information to the police with regard to death of his sister Dayavathi. According to Ex.P5, the first information report, accused No. 1 and deceased Dayavathi were loving each other. Despite opposition in their families for their marriage, they got married in a temple. A year after their marriage, deceased Dayavathi started going to her parents' house and whenever she went to her parents' house, she used to complain against her husband saying that he would come home taking liquor, beat and abuse her suspecting her fidelity. Dayavathi became pregnant and it ended in miscarriage. It is stated in the complaint that accused Nos. 1 and 2 used to harass her by saying that she was unable to bear a child. The deceased used to go to her parents' house in the morning to bring milk. On 06.11.2013, she did not go to her parents' house. Therefore PW2 went to his sister's house at about 10.00 a.m. He saw his sister sleeping. He tried to wake her up, but she did not respond. He returned to his house and brought his parents. Then they came to know that Dayavathi was dead. They noticed injury marks on the neck portion and on the left shoulder. They suspected that on the previous day night the husband and wife might have quarrelled and that the first accused, after killing his wife, might have left the house. After registration of the complaint, police held investigation and laid charge sheet against both the accused for the offences under sections 498A, 302 read with section 34 of IPC.

3. The trial court conducted trial and after going through the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, came to the conclusion that prosecution was not able to prove its case against accused No. 2 with regard to offence under section 498A of IPC and therefore acquitted accused No. 2 of the said offence. However, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove its case against accused No. 1 for the offence under sections 498A and 302 of IPC. For the offence under section 498A, first accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In relation to the offence under section 302, IPC, he was sentenced to life imprisonment and directed to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/-. He was also directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months in case he would default in paying fine amount. Out of the fine amount, Rs. 30,000/- was directed to be paid to the father of the deceased towards compensation.

4. We have heard Sri. D. Nagaraja Reddy, learned advocate appearing for the appellant in Crl.A. 1493/2015, Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor and also Sri. Patel D. Karegowda, learned advocate appearing for the respondent in Cri.A.881/ 2015. We have perused the records.

5. Sri Nagaraja Reddy, learned advocate for the appellant i.e. accused No. 1 argues that the Trial Court has erred in believing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-2, PW-3 and PW-7. PW-2 is the brother, PW-3 is the mother and PW-7 is the father of the deceased and therefore they are interested witnesses. PW-4 is a neighbour, PW-6 is the aunt of the deceased and their evidence also discloses existence of enmity between them and the accused and therefore their evidence should not