Point of Law: Evidence facilitated by prosecution should be beyond reasonable doubt and acceptability in all corners without giving any clouds of doubt.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Court of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge sitting at Madhugiri in Tumkur District in S.C. No.5042/2014 dated 09.09.2016, whereby convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, 1860 and directed to undergo imprisonment for life and sentence to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for period of 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period 3 years and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. The sentences awarded in both the counts of the offences shall run concurrently.

2. Heard Sri G.M.Ananda, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vijaykumar Majage, learned SPP-II and perused the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in S.C.5042/2014.

3. The factual matrix of this appeal are as under.

It is transpired in the case of prosecution that on the intervened night of 15.06.2014 and 16.06.2014 at 8.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., the accused, who suspected fidelity of his wife namely Girijamma, strangulated the neck of Girijamma with means of ligature material i.e., rope and committed her murder. Subsequent to committing her murder, he hanged her body to the ceiling so that it looks like herself committed the suicide. In pursuance of the act of the accused, on filing of the complaint by the complainant as per Ex.P1, the criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P21 for the aforesaid offences. Subsequently, the Investigation Officer taken the case for investigation and thorough investigation has been carried out and during investigation, the Investigation Officer conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the presence of panch witnesses and also held inquest over the dead body of Girijamma as per Ex.P4 and also the seizure mahazar as per Ex.P13. During investigation, the Investigation Officer recorded the voluntary statements of accused as per Ex.P24 and based upon his voluntary statement, the Investigating Officer proceeded for investigation according to the relevant provisions of law and recorded the statements of witnesses inclusive of securing the post-mortem report at Ex.P14 and laid the charge sheet against the accused before the committal Court. Subsequently, the committal Court passed an order as contemplated under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. Accordingly, the case in S.C.No.5042/2014 came to be registered.

4. On prima-facie material find against the accused, learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, whereby the accused declined the charges leveled against him.

5. Subsequent to framing of the charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences, the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, let in the evidence by subjecting PW.1 to PW.33 for examination and got marked several documents at Exs.P1 to P26 and so also got marked Mos.1 to Mo.10. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the parts of the prosecution, the incriminating statement as under Section 313 of Cr.P.C has been recorded by the trial Court, wherein the accused declined the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far. Subsequently, the accused was called upon to enter the defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C., but the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence.

6. Subsequent to closure of the entire evidence on the parts of the prosecution and so also on the parts of the defence side, the trial Court heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and counter arguments advanced by the defence counsel.

7. PW.1,