IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the importance of establishing a complete chain of circumstantial evidence for a conviction under Section 302 of IPC, which was successfully demonstrated in this case.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that on 22.08.2014, the complainant Sri T. Manjappa, resident of Adavisangenahalli, lodged a complaint alleging that the accused himself called him and informed him that he committed the murder of his wife. On the information given by the accused, immediately he rushed to the Village and found the dead body of his wife. He has lodged the complaint in terms of Ex.P.1 and the police i.e., P.W.17, who has received the complaint, registered the case and issued the FIR as per Ex.P.25 and immediately he rushed to the spot and conducted the spot mahazar in terms of Ex.P.2 and seized M.O.1 and M.O.2 at the spot and the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

2. The prosecution in order to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.19 and also got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 36 and M.O.1 to M.O.8. On the closure of the prosecution side, the accused has not adduced any oral evidence and only relevant portion of the statement of P.W.2 is got marked as Ex.D.1. The Trial Court recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and given opportunity to both the prosecution as well as the appellant/accused to address their arguments. Having heard the respective learned counsel and on perusal of the material on record, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and also directed to pay fine of Rs.30,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. It is also ordered to give set off to the accused for the period already undergone in judicial custody as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, life sentence and fine, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

4. The main grounds urged in the appeal before this Court is that the complaint was lodged at 4.30 p.m. on 22.08.2014 by the complainant, who is examined as P.W.1 and FIR is registered in terms of Ex.P.25. The endorsement made by the learned Magistrate is that he has received the FIR along with the complaint through H.C. of Hosadurga Police Station on 22.08.2014 at 9.00 p.m. But it is contended that endorsement on Ex.P.1 is dated 23.08.2014. P.W.1 says that P.W.2 Rangappa has written the complaint for his convenience. P.W.2 Rangappa has deposed that the police came and on the instructions of the police, he wrote the complaint Ex.P.1 and also admits that he has not written the complaint as stated by P.W.1. It is also contended that P.W.17 categorically admitted that the distance between the police station of Hosadurga and house of the Judge is about 1 km. Even if he goes by walk, 10-15 minutes is enough. He did not enquire with the P.C. who took the FIR as to why there was a delay inspite of FIR was dispatched at 5.25 p.m. and acknowledging the FIR at 9.00 p.m. He admits that he has not sent Ex.P.1 with Ex.P.25. It is contended during the course of argument that the Court below has erred in convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC inspite of the prosecution has not established its case and there is no direct evidence and the case is rest upon circumstantial evidence and no chain of link is established.

5. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.08.2024 at about 1.25 p.m. in the house of P.W.1, the accused committed the murder of the wife of P.W.1 with an intention to take away the life and he slit her neck with the help of knife and the Trial Court jumped to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The very conclusion is erroneous. It is also contended that the case of the police is that the incident was taken place at 1.25 p.m. on 22.0