The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

This appeal is by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 01.09.2017 in S.C.No.9/2015 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udupi sitting at Kundapura. The accused is convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ' IPC ') and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He is also convicted for the offence under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to three years imprisonment, besides fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused and deceased Vijay Karanth were neighbors. The deceased was chitchatting with PW.5-Deepika, the wife of the accused. The accused mistook this conversation as an illicit relationship between them. At the earlier point, the deceased was near the house of accused; the accused warned him not to have conversation with his wife and threatened the deceased to kill him. On 02.02.2015 at 11.30 a.m., when the deceased came to the house of accused at Karkada Village, Udupi Taluk, the accused questioned the deceased for his frequent visits to his house. These warnings resulted in heated arguments and contemplating that if the illicit relationship of the deceased with the wife of accused became is known to the public, his image would be damaged, the accused brought a knife and stabbed the deceased Vijay Karanth on his left chest, causing grievous injuries. He was taken to Pranav Hospital at Brahmmavar where the deceased succumbed to the injuries at 5.10 p.m. The accused cleaned the blood stains at the crime scene and washed the blood-stained clothes.

3. The police registered the complaint as per Ex.P1 as reported by PW.1-the brother of deceased. The trial court charged the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC . The trial court held that there were no eyewitnesses, however held that by the recovery of the knife, blood stained clothes and the presence of human blood on the material objects, the opinion in the post mortem report that the cause of death was due to injuries inflicted with MO.4-knife, the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused. The trial court held that the deceased chitchatting with the accused's wife and suspecting their relationship to be illicit was the motive for the crime. The trial court further considered the cleaning of blood at the crime scene and washing of blood-stained clothes are attempts to screen the evidence that would prove the offence and accordingly convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC .

4. Heard Sri Suyog Herele E., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vijaykumar Majage, learned SPP-II for the respondent-State.

5. Sri Suyog Herele, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the police registered UDR at the first instance on 02.02.2015 and thereafter on 03.02.2015, the accused was implicated.

5.1. It is submitted that there is a contradiction about the crime scene. The prosecution case is on unproved circumstantial evidence. There are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the prosecution case.

5.2. It is submitted that the motive as alleged by the prosecution is not established. The presence of suspicion is insufficient to connect the accused to the crime.

5.3. It is submitted that the panch witness to the recovery mahazar has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Bloodstains are not traced on the recovered clothes.

5.4. The prosecution case is based on recovery. The recovery was made at the instance of the accused. Mere recovery is not sufficient to prove the prosecution case. The prosecution has not followed the requirement of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for sh