Conviction for murder upheld based on circumstantial evidence of abuse and credibility of witness testimonies despite some witnesses turning hostile.

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him, the accused in S.C.No.20/2017 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere has preferred this appeal.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court. The accused was tried in S.C No.20/2017 on the charge that having married to Savita since 18 years, he had subjected her to physical and mental cruelty suspecting her fidelity. On 26.09.2016 at 4:30 p.m in the house situated at Lokikere village, Davanagere Taluk, accused picked up quarrel with his wife imputing infidelity, assaulted her with chopper on her neck, head, body and committed her murder. Then he attempted to commit suicide by slitting his neck with the same chopper.

3. In support of the case of prosecution, PWs.1 to 27 were examined, Exs.P1 to P28 and MOs.1 to 9 were marked.

After recording statement under Section 313 CR.P.C , the accused did not lead any defence evidence.

4. The trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, convicted the accused for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A , 302 and 309 of IPC and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment and fine as follows:

5. Heard both side.

Submissions of Sri P.D Subramanya, learned Counsel for appellant/accused:

6. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. PWs.9 and 10/children of the victim and the accused were cited as eyewitnesses. But their evidence shows that they were not the eyewitnesses. The evidence on record shows that the children of couple were staying with their grandparents. According to the prosecution, accused, deceased and mother of the accused were living together. But mother of the accused has not supported the prosecution case. The evidence of PWs.5 to 8 regarding ill-treatment to the victim was not consistent and cogent, moreover they were interested witnesses. PWs.13 and 20/the independent witnesses who were cited as eyewitnesses, have turned hostile. When the eyewitnesses turned hostile and there were no independent witnesses to speak the overt acts of the accused, the trial Court was in error in accepting the evidence of interested witnesses and convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused. Hence the impugned judgment and order needs to be set aside.

Submissions of Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II: 7. Though, eyewitness/PW.13 turned hostile, evidence of PW.8/father of the victim shows that it was PW.13 who informed PW.8 about the incident. PW.13 admitted the said fact in his evidence. PW.13/neighbour of the accused and PW.20 the relative of the accused turned hostile apparently to help the accused. PWs.5 to 8 and 9 and 10 have consistently spoken about ill-treatment of the accused against the victim and his addiction to the alcohol. There was no reason for them to falsely implicate the accused. Merely because they are relatives, they cannot be branded as interested witnesses. The death has taken place in the house of the accused. The accused has failed to explain how the victim and himself suffered injuries. The evidence of doctor/PW.15 shows that accused was brought to C.G hospital, Davangere by his relative with history of committing murder of his wife with chopper and slitting his own neck with the same chopper. The accused has failed to explain that circumstance. The trial Court on judicious appreciation of the evidence on record has convicted and sentenced the accused. The said order does not warrant interference of this Court.

8. On hearing both side and on examination of th