JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Court of I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in S.C.No.35/2016 dated 06.02.2017, whereby convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) and acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and so also under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘DP Act’ for short). Whereas in this appeal, learned counsel seeking intervention of the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court insofar as offence under Section 302 IPC by considering the grounds urged in this appeal and to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.35/2016 and acquit the accused for the aforesaid offence charged against him.

2. Heard Sri Gopalakrishna Murthy C., learned counsel for the appellant/accused, so also Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.35/2016.

3. Factual matrix of the appeal is as under:

It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that on 01.01.2016, the marriage of the deceased-Laxmi was performed with the accused – Nagaraj as per the customs prevailed in their society, but on 02.01.2016 at around 10.30 p.m., at Chitrahalli Village, wherein the accused was given some sort of torture to the deceased-Lakshmi by insisting her to provide a motorcycle through her parents. On the aforesaid date at Chitrahalli Village while deceased-Laxmi D/o.PW3-Veerabhadrappa and her husband-Nagaraj were present on the terrace of the house of the father of the deceased and whereby, the accused strangulated her neck with means of towel and also with black bead row containing mangalasuthra, which was found around her neck, which is tied by the accused on the previous day of marriage of the deceased, which were marked as MOs-1 and 11 as a result, the deceased last her breath.

It is further stated in the complaint that the accused strangulated her neck with means of towel and made her to die and also given physical as well as mental harassment by insisting her to bring additional dowry from her parents house to get a motorcycle and also caused for death of deceased-Lakshmi within a span of 36 hours from the date of her marriage.

4. In pursuance of the act of the accused, on filing of the complaint by PW3-Veerabhadrappa, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P7 but this FIR has been recorded based upon the complaint as per Ex.P8 filed by PW.3-Veerabhadrappa. Subsequent to recording of FIR, criminal prosecution was initiated against the person being arraigned as accused and criminal law was set into motion whereby the Investigating Officer has taken up the case for investigation and thoroughly investigated the matter and laid charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences before the committal Court. Subsequent to laying of charge sheet against the accused, the Committal Court passed an order as contemplated under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. by committing the case to the Court of Sessions for trial whereby the case in S.C.No.35/2016 came to be registered and the trial Court framed charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel. On prima facie case against the accused, the trial Court framed the charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences and accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the plea of the accused was recorded separately.

5. Subsequent to framing of charge against the accused for the aforesaid offences, the prosecution had put on trial and subjected to examination of PW.1 to PW.16 and got ma