J U D G M E N T

Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No.5016/2017 on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, sitting at Virajpet, the accused has preferred this appeal.

2. The accused was prosecuted in S.C.No.5016/2017 before the trial Court for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 302 and 201 of IPC, on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Siddapura police in Cr.No.261/2016 of their police station. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-

(i) That the victim Soni was married to CW-3 Mohana about 13 years prior to 03.11.2016 and out of the said marriage, she had two sons. The accused was a widower having four sons. However, about four years prior to 02.11.2016, when the accused had gone to Siddapura for coolie work, he developed illicit relationship with victim Soni and both of them eloped.

(ii) On 02.11.2016, at 7.30 p.m., both accused and the victim were staying in the servants' quarters provided by PW-4 in his estate situated within the jurisdiction of Siddapura police station. The accused was addicted to alcohol. On 02.11.2016, at 7.30 p.m., in his house, the accused picked up quarrel with Soni regarding consumption of alcohol, he assaulted her, when she fell unconscious, he throttled her neck and committed her murder. To screen the evidence of offence, he tied the saree to the ceiling of the house and hung her, projecting before her relatives that she committed suicide.

(iii) PW-1, PW-7 and PW-9 are the brother, sister and father of the deceased respectively, PW-2 is the wife of PW-1. PW-1 on learning about the incident visited the scene of offence. On enquiry, the accused confessed before them about the commission of crime. Regarding the incident, PW-1 filed a complaint as per Ex-P1 before PW-13. Based on the said complaint, PW-13 registered FIR as per Ex-P26. On registering the FIR, he conducted inquest and spot mahazar, recorded the statement of the witnesses, then he handed over further investigation to PW-14. PW-14 arrested the accused, conducted further investigation and filed the charge sheet. 4. The trial Court on hearing the parties, framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections

323, 302 and 201 of IPC. Since the accused denied the charges, trial was conducted. In support of the case of the prosecution, PW-1 to PW-14 were examined, Ex-P1 to Ex-P31 and M.O.1 to M.O.7 were marked. The trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him to different terms of imprisonment and fine as below:-

5. The trial Court held that though the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances set up by the prosecution are proved by cogent and consistent evidence.

Submissions of Sri. Suresh H.S., learned counsel for the appellant:-

6. That the evidence of the prosecution with regard to death being homicidal was not conclusive, RFSL report and the post-mortem report themselves show that the blood of the victim contained 72.76 mg/100ml of alcohol. The evidence of PW-2 shows that the victim had suicidal tendencies. Such evidence substantiated the defence of the accused that the victim met suicidal death. PWs-1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 did not support the prosecution’s version regarding accused being the culprit. The trial Court without considering the same convicted the appellant only the medical evidence and the evidence of the other official witnesses which is unsustainable. Alternatively, it was submitted that as per the prosecution itself, the ac