The conviction of the accused was overturned due to inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, primarily relying on the testimony of a witness which lacked corroboration and credibility.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, [Hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’] by the accused No.1 calling in question the judgment dated 06.09.2022 passed in S.C.No.9/2019 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote, [Hereinafter referred as ‘trial Court’,] whereunder, the accused No.1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, [Hereinafter referred as ’ IPC ’] and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 504 and 506 of . The accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of , rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section307 of the . The accused No.2 was acquitted of all the charges.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Boravva-PW.7(CW.6), [Hereinafter referred as ’PW.7’] was the wife of Saidusab Davalsab Mehtar, [Hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’]. That PW.7 and deceased were married about 30 years ago. That PW.7 is the daughter of the first wife of her father and the appellant-accused No.1 is the son of the second wife of the father of PW.7. That land bearing R.Sy.No.113 of Kaladagi village was the joint family property of the PW.7 and accused No.1. As accused No.1 refused to give a share to PW.7, she filed a suit for partition and got her share in the joint family property. That accused No.1 and his wife, [Hereinafter referred as ‘accused No.2’] decided to commit murder of PW.7 and her husband. That on 04.03.2018 at about 10.30 am., PW.7 and her husband came to the land bearing R.Sy.No.113 of Kaladagi village and upon seeing them, accused No.1 became angry and questioned them as to why they came near the land when PW.7 has no right over the land. Thereafter, accused No.1 picked up a quarrel with PW.7 and her husband (deceased) and abused them in filthy language and with an intention of committing murder, hit the deceased with an axe, on his neck, face, chest and shoulder, due to which injuries, the deceased died on the spot. That when PW.7 attempted to rescue her husband, accused No.2 who is the wife of accused No.1, caught hold of PW.7 and abused her with filthy language and assaulted her. That PW.7 escaped from the clutches of accused No.1 and when she attempted to rescue her husband, accused No.1 with an intention of committing murder of PW.7 assaulted her with an axe, as a result of which PW.7 sustained injuries to the fingers of her left hand and lost part of the little finger and also sustained injury to her ring finger. That subsequent to the incident, accused Nos.1 and 2 fled from the spot.

3. PW.3 lodged a complaint with the police authorities on the basis of which a case was registered against the accused and charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 506 , 341, 504, 302, 307 and 326 r/w Section 34 of the IPC .

4. The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.20 and marked Ex.P1 to P28 as well as M.Os.1 to 9. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein, they denied the incriminating evidence against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated. The accused did not choose to adduce any evidence.

5. The Trial Court framed the following points for consideration:-

“1. Whether the prosecution proves that deceased Saidusab died a homicidal death?

2. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused named above, in furtherance of t