Point of Law: Section 299 relates to causing death by doing an act with intention of causing death or with intention of causing bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

JUDGMENT :

1. This filed by the convicted accused, is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01/02.03.2017 passed by the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, in S.C. No. 228/2014 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 341 and 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-for the offences punishable under Section 448 IPC; further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC; further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the appellant/accused is related to the deceased Ratnamma. It is stated that prior to 18 years, the said Ratnamma was given in marriage to one Manjunatha of Chatranahalli village and after their marriage, they are said to have lived at Kuppalli. Prior to seven years of the alleged incident, her husband Manjunatha died and deceased Ratnamma started living along with her minor daughter in a rented house belonging to one Channegowda/PW-14. During this time, Ratnamma is said to have developed intimacy with one Rafiq /PW-13 and they were in a live-in relationship. Appellant/accused being enraged by their relationship, is said to have advised Ratnamma not to continue such relationship. In spite of his advise, Ratnamma is said to have continued her relationship with Rafiq. Being annoyed with the same, the appellant/accused, as on 06.04.2014 at about 1.00 p.m., is said to have entered into Ratnamma’s house unlawfully and had quarreled with her and had assaulted her with his hands and legs. Though she had tried to run away in order to escape from his clutches, appellant/accused is said to have chased her by holding a sickle and near one Venkatesha’s house/PW-4, the appellant had obstructed her and murdered her by throttling her neck. Hence, a complaint was lodged by Chandregowda/PW-1 and based on the said complaint, an FIR was registered by the respondent/police. Subsequently, after investigating the matter, and after collecting necessary documents and other evidence, the respondent/police laid the charge-sheet against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 341 and 302 of IPC.

3. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Court framed charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences. However, the accused denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against him, the prosecution examined in total 22 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-22 and so also marked 20 documents as Exhibits P1 to P20. The prosecution also marked 5 material objects as MO-1 to MO-5. However, the accused neither examined any witnesses in his favour nor marked any documents. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and that of false implication. Subsequently, incriminating statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused has denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far. He did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence.

4. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on both sides and on an assessment of the oral as well as documentary evidence placed before the Trial Court, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences leveled against him. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused is in appeal before this Court.

5. We have heard the learned counsel Shri H.S. Suresh for the appellant and Shri H.S. Shankar, learned HCGP for the respondent/State and perused