The conviction under Section 302 of IPC was upheld due to circumstantial evidence demonstrating motive and opportunity, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

(RAJESH RAI K., J.)

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2022 and order of sentence dated 13.12.2022 passed in Sessions Case No.182/2018 by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Sessions Judge’), whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC .

2. The abridged facts of the case are as follows:

The deceased Dr.Umakant in the instant case is the father of PW.1-Rashmi Vishal Halagatti and accused-Ravi is her younger brother. The deceased-Umakant had transferred 10 guntas of land in Sambra village in the name of accused and desired to construct a commercial complex by raising loan from the Bank for the benefit of accused. However, accused was not ready to sign the loan papers. In this connection, there were frequent tussles between the deceased and the accused. Against this backdrop, on 31.01.2018 accused quarreled with deceased. The said aspect was informed by the deceased to PW.1 on the following day morning i.e., on 01.02.2018 that there is a danger to his life by accused.

3. When things stood thus, on 02.02.2018 at about 00.30 hours, accused came to the house of PW.1 and informed her that there was a theft in his house and the miscreants have done away the life of their father-deceased. When PW.1 rushed to the house, she found her father (deceased) was severely injured and lying in a pool of blood. On enquiry with neighbours, she came to know about the involvement of accused in the crime. Hence, she lodged the complaint against him before the Malmaruti Police Station as per Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, PW.32-Investigating Officer registered the FIR in Crime No.16/2018 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC . Subsequently, PW.32 apprehended the accused on the same day and conducted further investigation in the case and recorded the statement of material witnesses and drawn the relevant mahazars. On obtaining necessary documents from the concerned authorities, handed over the same to PW.33 for further investigation, PW.33 laid the charge sheet against the accused before the committal Court for the aforementioned offence.

4. Post committal of the case before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge after securing the presence of the accused, fram2ed the charges against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and read over the same to him. However, he denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 34 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.34, marked 69 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P69 and identified 23 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.23.

6. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating evidence of material witnesses to the accused as stipulated in Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same. The defence of the accused is of absolute denial and that of false implication.

7. Following the assessment of oral and documentary evidence placed before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused for the charges levelled against him and sentenced him as stated supra. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged in this appeal.

8. We have heard