The appellant has preferred this appeal against the

judgment of conviction dated 09.10.2017 and order of sentence

dated 10.10.2017 passed in S.C.No.82/2013 by the learned II

Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru, convicting the accused /

appellant for the offences under sections 302 and 498A of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The deceased Vishali is the wife of the accused. She was

found dead in the land of one Nagendra in Hallada Manuganahalli

village on 23.01.2012 in the morning hours. The marriage of the

deceased with the accused was solemnized about 11 to 12 years

prior to the incident. Their relation was cordial at the initial

stage. Thereafter, some problems arose between them. They

had two children out of their wedlock, a son, by name, Kiran and

a daughter, by name, Kirthi. The accused was working in vehicle

service garage, he used to desert the house frequently. On

returning from his work, he was suspecting the fidelity of the

3

deceased and subjected her to cruelty. He always wanted to join

the children to the Orphanage for their growth and study. The

deceased was opposing and quarrelling in that regard that the

children should grow with her in the house. She wanted the

children to learn in a good school. However, the accused was

not interested to feed them properly by giving money. Such

being the matter, the deceased had sent the children to her

native place for their study. This matter was not aware to the

accused. In the evening on 22.1.2012, the accused questioned

about the whereabouts of the children and the deceased

expressed her ignorance. Then, the accused asked her to

accompany in order to search the children. It was about 8.00

p.m., they left the house at Moratikyathanahalli in search of their

children. On the next day morning, the dead body of the

deceased

was

found

in

the

land

of

Nagendra

at

Halladamanuganahalli village.

3.

On seeing the dead body, a complaint came to be

lodged by PW.1. Upon such complaint, the police have

registered

the

case

in

Crime

No.29/2012

and

started

4

investigation. The accused was arrested on 01.12.2012. After

apprehending

the

accused,

the

police

have

conducted

investigation and filed charge sheet. On committal to the

Sessions Court, the Sessions Court framed the charges against

the accused for the offences under sections 302, 498A of IPC.

The accused has denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution in order to prove the case, examined PWs.1 to

29 and marked the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P98 and also marked

the material objects MO.1 to MO.9. After careful scrutiny of the

evidence and material available on record, the Trial Court

convicted the accused / appellant for the offences under sections

302 and 498A of IPC. Being aggrieved by the said conviction,

the appellant has preferred this appeal seeking to set aside the

judgment of conviction.

4.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5.

Sri.H.S.Suresh, learned counsel for the appellant

contended that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in

not considering the evidence properly and convicted the

accused. The Trial Court ought to have considered the evidence

5

in detail, since, the entire case is based on circumstantial

evidence. That on thorough scrutinization of the evidence has

not been done by the Trial Court and the impugned judgment

has been passed.

6.

He further contended that the Trial Court mainly

relied on the document which is marked as Ex.P16 i.e., the

phone number of one Mallesh said to have been written by the

son of the deceased and accused, the same had been handed

over to the accused for reference of the phone number. Though

the said document which was marked as Ex.P16, the handwriting

found on the document has not been sent to FSL for its expert9s

opinion as to whether the handwrirting belongs to the son of the

deceased or not. Such being the fact, relying on such piece of

evidence and convicting the accused is absolutely arbitrary and

il