IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the court cannot rely solely on moral conviction or suspicion. Corroborative evidence is essential to establish guilt.

JUDGMENT :

1. These two appeals are filed against the judgment and order of sentence passed in SC No. 10/2019 dated 24.02.2020 by the Learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, Sitting at Hubballi, wherein, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the accused/ appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I and Section 201 of IPC and sentenced the accused/appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and he shall liable to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of payment of fine, he is further directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC. The accused is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. Learned Sessions judge has further ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case in brief are as follows:

One Karbasagowda Fakkiragowda Satmara-PW1 had lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.1 before PW-18/CPI of Kundagol Police Station, alleging that, his brothers, namely, Sankanagowda Fakkiragowda Satmara (now deceased in this case) and Devendragowda Fakkiragowda Satmara is examined as PW-8 are residing together. That, his elder brother, deceased Sankanagowda was alcoholic and after consuming the same, he used to commit cruelty to his family members and also to his brothers. Unable to tolerate the same, his wife and elder son were residing in her parental house at Ranathoor, Shirahatti Taluk. It is the further case of the prosecution that, on early morning of 26.08.2018, the deceased’s elder son Sureshgowda Sankanagowda Satmara - appellant/accused came to his house at Kubhihal to celebrate the Rakhi festival with his cousins at about 3:30 pm. While, accused and his brother were sitting at their house, the deceased barged in, by seeing his son (accused), being annoyed, started abusing in vulgar language. By hearing the same, the neighbor i.e. Naganagowda Satmar/PW-6 when rushed to the spot and witnessed that the deceased was abusing his son stating that “why did you come back, you should have been lived with your mother?” by that time, PW-1 intervened and advised the diseased to leave him. For which, the deceased had thrown the wooden stand on the complainant-PW-1 stating that “who is he to advise him?” However, he escaped unhurted. By hearing the same, the appellant/accused annoyed on his father, who was not allowing him to live happily, by causing harassment to him and his mother, picked up a knife form the house and repeatedly stabbed on deceased face, stomach and chest. Due to the same, the deceased collapsed in the house. Though PW-1 and others i.e. the inmates of the house, made an attempt to treat the deceased, he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, PW-1 lodged the complaint before the respondent/Police i.e. before PW-18, and who registered the FIR as per Ex.P.36 in Crime No. 131/2018 dated 26.08.2018 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

3. Subsequently, PW-18 conducted the investigation by drawing the spot Mahazar as per Ex.P.3 and conducted the Inquest Panchnama on the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P.13. Later, he arrested the accused on 31.08.2018 and recorded his voluntary statement and based on the same, recovered the knife which is said to have been used for the commission of the Crime at MO.3.

4. Further, by drawing the various Mahazars and also obtaining the Post-mortem report from the Doctor and also the report from the Scientific Officer and by recording the statements of all the witnesses, he laid the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC before the committal Court.

5. After committal of the case before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under