Point of Law: Section 304 of IPC, 1860 which reads as Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.83/2016 dated 02.02.2017 whereby convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, 1860. Whereas under this appeal the appellant is seeking intervention of the judgment of conviction and to consider the grounds as urged in this appeal and consequently, set-aside the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.83/2016 and acquit the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel Sri H.P. Leeladhar for appellant and learned Addl.SPP for respondent – State. Perused the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court.

3. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under:

It is transpired in the case of prosecution that complainant – H.G. Sangappa had entrusted work of construction of house in site bearing No.172 situated at Swamy Vivekananda Layout, Shivamogga to CW.7 – Prakash under whom deceased Rajasab @ Basha and accused Shekarappa were doing masonry work. On 18.12.2015 both deceased and accused were working in the site and since the RCC work was under progress, the complainant met them at 7 p.m. The deceased and accused told him that they are going to have their supper. Both accused and deceased were staying in the same building which was under construction. But on 19.12.2015 at around 8.00 a.m. complainant came to the construction site, but nobody were found outside the building. He entered inside the house where he found the body of the deceased lying in the pool of blood. There were also injuries on the body, the face of the deceased was totally battered. The accused was not found in the house and his belongings were also not found. Under such circumstances, on suspicion, the complainant lodged a complaint against the accused based upon which the criminal law was set into motion by registering the case in Crime No.577/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

4. Subsequent to recording the FIR the investigating officer took up the case for investigation and investigation was done thoroughly and charge sheet was laid before the committal court. Subsequent to committing the case by committal Court the case in S.C.No.83/2016 was registered. The learned public prosecutor and defense counsel were heard relating to framing of charge against the accused person whereby on prima facie material being found against accused person, charges were framed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, whereby the accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the plea of the accused was recorded separately.

5. Subsequent to framing of charge, the prosecution has let in the evidence by subjecting to examination of PW.1 to PW.12 and got marked several documents as per Exs.P1 to Px.P29 and so also, got marked material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.27.

6. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the accused was subjected to examination as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for enabling him to answer the incriminating evidence appeared against him, whereby, the accused declined all the circumstances relating to incriminating evidence appeared against him and accordingly, it was recorded. Subsequently, the accused was called upon to enter into defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C., whereby he did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf. Accordingly, it was recorded. But Ex.D1 the contradictory statement of PW.10 was got marked.

7. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the part of the prosecution and also on the defence side, the trial Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and counter arguments advanced by the defence counsel and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, passed the impugned judgment convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, 1860. It is this judgment