The court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the need for proper application of legal standards regarding sentencing.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH RAI K, J.

This appeal by the convicted accused directed against the judgment of conviction dated 12.01.2021 and order of sentence dated 13.01.2021 passed in S.C.No.5054/2017 dated 12.01.2021 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bellary (Sitting at Hosapete) (hereinafter called ‘the learned Sessions Judge) whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment till his last breath and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment fine, he shall undergo further imprisonment for six month for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC .

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that, the deceased in the instant case one Eedigara Ramappa, was residing along with his children at Nandi Bandi Village after demise of his wife. About 3 to 4 years prior to June 2017, the appellant/accused picked up a quarrel with deceased as he used to ogle the wife of the accused. The accused had threatened the deceased that he will do away his life. When things stood thus, on 30.06.2017 at about 12:30 p.m. when deceased-Eedigara Ramappa was sitting beneath a peepal tree chatting with the villagers, the accused all of a sudden went behind the deceased and assaulted him with an axe on his neck, resulting in the deceased-Eedigara Ramappa falling down. The accused again assaulted with the same axe on his neck and the deceased bled to death on the spot. Though PW.1 the son of the deceased and PWs.8 to 11 who were present there attempted to rescue the deceased but by that time, the deceased had succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the son of deceased i.e., PW1-Complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police against the accused as per Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, PW.10-the then Police Sub-Inspector of respondent-Police registered FIR against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC in Crime No.108/2017 as per Ex.P17.

3. Subsequently, the Investigation Officer-PW.12 conducted the further investigation by drawing spot mahazar, inquest panchanama and later arrested the accused on 01.07.2017 and based on his voluntary statement, effected the seizer and after recording the statement of material witnesses, and obtaining documents from the concerned authorities, laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC before the committal Court.

4. Post committal of case before the Session Court, learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for the aforementioned offence and read over the same to him. However, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution in total examined 15 witnesses as PWs.1 to 15 and got marked 29 documents as Exs.P1 to P29 so also identified 7 material objects as MOs.1 to 7.

6. After assessing the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the charges leveled against him and sentenced him as stated supra. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged in this appeal.

7. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. Vidyashankar G. Dalwai for the appellant and learned Addl. SPP Sri A.M.Gundawade for the respondent-State.

8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is that, the learned Sessions Judge grossly erred while convicting the appellant/accused without appreciating the evidence in a right perspective. He further contended that, the evidence of eyewitnesse