Point of law: When the doubt arises in the evidence of prosecution, the benefit of doubt always accrues in favour of the accused alone. But in the instant case, the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective manner.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against judgment of conviction dated 12.08.2011 and order of sentence dated 17.08.2011 rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.174/2008 dated 12.08.2011, whereby convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324 and 304 (2) of IPC, 1860. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only), in default to pay fine, further shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304(2) of IPC, 1860. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Sections 323 of IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Sections 324 of IPC. Substantive sentence for all offences which awarded against the accused was ordered to run concurrently. Whereas, under this appeal seeking to allow the appeal by considering the grounds as urged therein and further seeking for acquittal of the accused for the aforesaid offences.

2. Heard learned counsel Smt.Archana Murthy for the appellant and learned HCGP for the State who are present before the Court physically.

3. Perused the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.174/2008 and so also evidence of PWs.1 to 20 inclusive of Exs.P1 to 16 and MOs.1 to 6 on part of the prosecution and on the defence side got marked at Exs.D1 to D9 (a).

4. Factual matrix of the prosecution case are as under :

Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna - complainant filed the complaint before the K.R.Sagara Police Station and based upon her complaint crime came to be registered by recording FIR. Whereas in her complaint it is alleged that her husband - Nanjundaaradhya and herself were residing at Mogarahalli Village (Kalmanti) of Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. Her husband was working in Vikranth Factory at Mysuru. Her family consisting of her husband and their two children namely Madhukiran and Ganesh Babu. When the complainant Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna along with her husband and their two children residing in newly constructed house at Kalamanti, Mogarahalli Village. The accused - Leela and her family was also residing in the house situated at Mogarahalli village just opposite to the house of the complainant -Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna.

5. It is further alleged that house of the accused - Leela had connection of water tap and the complainant used to fetch water from the tap of the accused in her house for which there was some quarrel in between the complainant’s family and the accused family. Just two days prior to the incident on 29.07.2008 that the complainant obtained new water tap connection of her house for which she stopped to fetch water from the tap of accused - Leela. Such being the fact the husband of the accused namely Sambhashivaiah who is cited as PW.7 in the charge sheet used to come to the house of complainant - Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna and had some cordial relationship between them for which accused - Leela since one year used to quarrel with the complainant- Smt.Y.D Nagarathna suspecting the illicit relationship of the complainant with CW.7 Sambhashivaiah. For this reason, at about 2 to 3 times that PW.5 - H.C.Swamy and PW.6 - Devaraju pacified the quarrel which took place among the families of Smt.Y.D Nagarathna and accused - Leela.

6. It is further alleged that on 29.07.2008 at around 6.00 p.m. wherein the complainant -Smt.Y.D.Nagarathna was present along with her husband - Nanjundaaradhya and children PW.2 - Madhukiran, PW.3 - Ganesh Babu and her elder sister’s son PW.4 - Manukumar, somebody had knocked the door at round 6.30 p.m. Therefore, to open the said door the complainant -Smt.Y.D Nagarathna and her husband - Nanjundaaradhya alleged to have come near the door and complainant -Smt.Y.D Nagarathna opened the door and found the accused - Leela, w/o Sambashivaiah was present