THIS

DAY,

RAJENDRA

BADAMIKAR,

J.

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2

JUDGMENT

The appellant/accused has filed this appeal under

Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the Principal

District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in S.C.No.6/2017

dated 13.11.2017 whereby the learned Sessions Judge

has convicted the appellant/accused under Sections 302

and 201 of IPC and sentenced him imprisonment for life

with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302

of IPC with default clause and rigorous imprisonment for

a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default

clause for the offence under Section 201 of IPC.

2.

For the sake of convenience, parties shall be

referred with the original ranks occupied by them before

the trial court.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as

under:

3

That the deceased Manjula was given in marriage

to the accused about 8 years prior to her death. Accused,

his wife and their minor daughters were residing in

Hanamapur village. Earlier, the deceased Manjula @

Savita was suffering from tuberculosis and after she

being cured, her marriage was solemnized. Further, it is

also alleged that she had already undergone tubectomy

operation and there was infection due to surgery and she

had obtained treatment in her parental house. It is

further case of the prosecution that 20 days prior to the

date of filing of the complaint accused being son-in-law

of the complainant took his wife and children to his house

at Hanamanal. The accused used to reside separately

with his wife and children in Hanamanal village while his

parents used to reside separately in the same village. It

is further case of the prosecution that, 4 days prior to her

death, she had come to the house of the complainant

and resided for one day and later on returned to her

house along with her husband and children. It is further

the allegation of the prosecution that accused was not

4

doing any work and he used to subject the victim all

along to ill-treatment in order to meet out his illegal

demand of money for consumption of liquor. Deceased

used to advise him to give up the habit of drinking, but

the accused used to quarrel with her in this regard and

subjected her to ill-treatment.

3.

According to the prosecution, on 22.04.2016

at about 9.00 or 9.30 p.m. the deceased slept in her

house along with her husband and children and it is

alleged that at about 3.00 a.m. accused informed his

brother-in-law i.e., another son of the complainant by

name Parashuram and reported that his wife is not

responding as she did not wake up in spite of all the

efforts. The matter was brought to the notice of the

complainant and immediately complainant along with

other family members went to Hanamanal village where

they found that deceased Manjula was sleeping on the

mat and she was already dead. As such, the complainant

suspected some foul play and he lodged a complaint

5

regarding unnatural death of his daughter as per Ex.P7.

On the basis of the same, UDR crime No.14/2016 was

registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and FIR came to

be issued as per Ex.P20 to Taluka Executive Magistrate.

Thereafter, scene of occurrence mahazar was conducted

and inquest was also conducted on the dead body. Later

on, postmortem was conducted on the dead body and

the Medical Officer who has conducted the postmortem

has collected viscera and hyoid bone and sent the same

to KIMS Hospital and to FSL for examination. The

postmortem report was received on 07.05.2016 and final

opinion is withheld for want of FSL report.

4.

It is also alleged that in the meanwhile, the

complainant heard rumors that his daughter was

strangulated by the accused. Then he went to Hanamanal

village and enquired with the accused, but the accused

did not respond properly and behaved as if nothing has

happened. As such, after discussing this aspect, the

complainant has filed a complaint against the accused for

6

the offence under Section 302 of IPC. This com