The court affirmed that eyewitness testimony, corroborated by forensic evidence, established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder and intimidation.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH RAI K, J.

This appeal by the convicted accused directed against the judgment of conviction dated 29.04.2016 and order of sentence dated 30.04.2016 passed in S.C.No.283/2012 by the II Addl. Sessions Judge at Belagavi (hereinafter called ‘the learned Sessions Judge) whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and also sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. It directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows:

The Deceased-Gangawwa is the wife of accused. The accused suspected her chastity and believed that she had an illicit affair with someone. On 29.04.2012, at 01.30 p.m., at Markumbi Village of Saundatti Taluk, the accused murdered his wife in his house by assaulting her on her neck with a sickle- M.O.1. Though PW.1-complainant i.e., son of the deceased attempted to rescue his mother, the accused threatened to kill him. Thereafter, the accused dragged the body and placed it on the door sill and severed the head of deceased-Gangawwa and carried it and threw it on the road in front of the house of Somalingappa. Hence, the son of deceased lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police against accused as per Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, PW.14-Sub-Inspector of respondent- Police registered FIR against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC in Crime No.120/2012 as per Ex.P15.

3. Subsequently, the Investigation Officer-PW.17 conducted further investigation by drawing spot mahazar and inquest panchanama. Later, he arrested the accused on 01.05.2012 and based on his voluntary statement, affected the seizer and after recording the statement of material witnesses and on obtaining documents from the concerned authorities, laid charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC before the committal Court.

4. Post committal of case before the Sessions Court, learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for the aforementioned offences 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 examined 17 witnesses as PWs.1 to 17 and marked 26 documents as Exs.P1 to P26 and also identified 13 material objects as MOs.1 to 13.

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 Amicus Curiae Sri. S.L. Matti 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 right perspective. He further contended that, the evidence of eyewitnesses-PWs.1, 2, and 5, suffer from severe infirmities and the same cannot be relied to prove the guilt of accused. According to the learned counsel, the decapitated head of the deceased-Gangawwa was found on the road in front of the house of one Somalingappa. The prosecution claimed that the accused threw it, but the said aspect was not proved since the prosecution failed to examine the said Somalingappa though he was cited as a witness in the charge-sheet. Further, the evidence of PW.1 i.e., son of the deceased cannot be relied for the reason that he was tutored by his grandparents with whom he was residin