Point of Law: It is well-settled principle that in criminal cases, if two views are possible on evidence adduced in case, one binding to guilt of accused and other is to his innocence, view which is favourable to accused, should be adopted.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal filed by the convicted Accused No. 1 is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.03.2017 passed in S.C. No. 164/2015 by the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Davanagere wherein the accused No. 1 is convicted for offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. Accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for two years. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the marriage of the deceased Jyothi Bai was solemnized with Accused No. 1 about 10 to 11 years prior to 26.03.2015. After the marriage, Accused No. 1 led a happy marital life with deceased Jyothi Bai for a few days. Thereafter, Accused No. 1 and her in-laws, that is Accused Nos.2 to 5, in furtherance of their common object, had started to harass the deceased and subjected her to both mental and physical cruelty with their illegal demand of dowry by abusing her in filthy language and also abetted her to commit suicide. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 26.03.2015 at about 6.45 p.m., when the deceased Jyothi Bai was present in her matrimonial house situated at Tholahunase village, Accused No. 1 picked up a quarrel with her by suspecting her fidelity, at the instance of Accused Nos.2 to 5 and with an intention to commit her murder, he assaulted on her body with a deadly weapon like axe and caused grievous injuries over her neck and other vital parts of her body. As such, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Hence, PW-1/Nagarajanaika, the father of the deceased lodged a complaint before the respondent/police as per Exhibit P1 and based on the same, FIR came to be registered in Cr.No. 110/2015 dated 27.03.2015 against Accused Nos.1 to 5 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 498A, 302, 504, and 114 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Thereafter, the respondent/police investigated the case by recording the statement of witnesses and also by conducting spot mahahar and recovery mahazar and by obtaining the reports and after investigation, laid a charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences before the Committal Court.

3. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for the offences and read over the same to the accused. However, the accused pleaded not guilty for the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution in total examined 19 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-19 and so also marked 22 documents as Exhibits P1 to P22 and 5 material objects MO-1 to MO-5. After examination of the above witnesses, the learned Trial Judge read over the incriminating portions of the evidence as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and that of false implication.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and so also by assessing the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court, the learned Trial Judge convicted Accused No. 1 for offences under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC. However, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Accused Nos.2 to 5 for the charges leveled against them and so also acquitted Accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 504 and 114 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The said impugned judgment is challenged in this appeal by Accused No. 1.

6. We have heard Shri Karthik Shankarappa, learned counsel for the appellant and so also Shri Vijayakumar Majage, learne