Point of Law: In terms of Section 354(3) of Cr.P.C., it is clear that normally imprisonment for life is to be awarded and only in any exceptional circumstances death sentence is required to be awarded.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Appellant is before this Court on appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete) in Sessions Case No.5031/2017 dated 03.12.2019.

2. By way of the order of conviction, the Appellant was found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, and by way of order of sentence, the Appellant was sentenced to capital punishment of death penalty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and directed him to be hung till death. In terms of Section 366 of Cr.P.C. the matter is submitted to this Court for confirmation of sentence.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the Appellant had married deceased Pakkeeramma 12 years prior to the date of incident. Initially, the relationship between the Appellant and the deceased was cordial, later, he started suspecting the fidelity of his wife and started quarrelling with her by assaulting her physically. Though many elders and neighbours advised the Appellant, the Appellant continued the suspicion and abuse. The Appellant would often say that other than the daughter Rajeshwari the other three children, namely Basamma, Nagaraj @ Rajappa and Pavithra were not born to him, and suspected their paternity.

4. It is in that background that the Appellant is alleged to have on 25.02.2017 assaulted Pakkeeramma, her sister Gangamma and the minor children Pavithra, Nagaraj @ Rajappa and Basamma with a chopper in such a manner that 4 of them expired at the spot and Basamma expired on the way to the hospital. The Appellant came out of the house and shouted that he was happy to have chopped his wife and sister-in-law, who are involved in immoral activities and that he has also chopped off three children who were not born to him.

5. It is in that background that a complaint was filed and Crime No.23/2015 was registered in Kampli Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was laid for the said offence against the Appellant before the Committal Court. After taking cognizance of the offence, the Committal Court registered the case against the Appellant, secured him from judicial custody, furnished a copy of the charge sheet and after hearing both sides committed the matter for trial.

6. After registration of the case, the Appellant was secured from judicial custody. He was represented by a panel advocate of Taluka Legal Services Committee. After hearing both sides, charges for the offence under Section 302 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to the Appellant in a language known to the Appellant. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined in all 36 witnesses out of 66 witnesses cited in the charge sheet as PWs.1 to PW.36 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.51 and material objects at MOs.1 to MO.22 were marked in support of its case.

8. After the closure of evidence of the prosecution, the incriminating evidence against the Appellant was put across to the Appellant and his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded when the Appellant denied the incriminatory evidence against him, he did not lead any evidence in his defence.

9. After hearing the prosecution and defence, the trial Court passed the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence of death penalty. Aggrieved by which the Appellant is before this court represented by Sri S L Matti, a panel counsel for the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad.

10. Sri.S.L.Matti, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that:

10.1. There are no eyewitnesses to the case and as such, the case is one of circumstantial evidence.

10.2. The prosecution has been unable to prove the case against the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

10.3. In fact, there are so many loopholes in the case of the prosecution that they cannot be explained and would only result in an irresisti