The conviction upheld on the basis of reliable eyewitness testimonies, including that of a child witness, despite challenges about potential inconsistencies.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

Heard Sri Subham Anand Mishra, learned counsel for Sri Kapil Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant-accused, and Smt. Pushpalatha B., learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the Accused-Sridhara married Smt. Sakamma (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') about five years back. While leading marital life at Baggalu Rangavvanahalli Village, Chitradurga, the accused used to give physical and mental harassment to the deceased by suspecting her fidelity and practiced cruelty. On 27.6.2018 at about 2.30 a.m., while the deceased was sleeping, the accused with an intention to commit her murder, smacked a stone on her head, as a result, she suffered grievous bleeding injuries and died at the spot.

3. Based on the complaint, a case was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ' IPC ') and seized bloodstained shirt of the accused. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, collected the FSL report and Post-Mortem examination report, and filed the charge-sheet against the accused. Since the accused was in judicial custody, he was secured and charge was framed. The accused did not plead guilty and claims trial. Hence, the prosecution relies on the evidence of PW1 to PW22, got marked Exs.P1 to P48 and MOs.1 to 11.

4. The trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that accused committed the murder of his wife and convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC . He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of . The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused vehemently contended that the evidence of PW1 is inconsistent. The case of the prosecution is that PW6, son of the accused and the deceased, went to the house of PW1, aunt, and informed about the incident, but PW6 is aged about three and half-a-year old and in the midnight, the child going and waking up the aunt cannot be believed. He would submit that there is no complaint prior to the incident with regard to harassment and also the Police advising the accused and the deceased not to quarrel with each other. The evidence of PW6 is that he was tutored by his aunt. He would submit that the age of the bloodstains was not determined. Hence, on all these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State would submit that PW8- Mahanthesha, cousin of the deceased, immediately went to the house of the accused and the deceased in odd hour and saw the dead body of the deceased and PW7-Shanthamma, mother of the deceased, having received the confirmation from PW8, she also visited the spot and found the dead body of her daughter. The evidence of PW1 to PW22 are consistent. She would submit that the evidence of PWs.3 and 4, recovery witnesses, with regard to the recovery of MO8-shirt, are consistent and they categorically deposed that bloodstained shirt was seized at the instance of the accused. PWs.9 and 10 are the circumstantial witnesses and they speak about conducting of panchayat prior to the incident. She would submit that the evidence of PW5 is very clear with regard to the FSL is concerned that the cloth of the accused stained with blood, that too, 'O' group human blood. However, no explanation