In circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also Smt.Rashmi Patel, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.

2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498A and also Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under and also one year punishment for the offence under of IPC with fine of Rs.200/-.

3. The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that the accused is the husband of the deceased and there was a dispute between them, particularly in the intervening night between 10.04.2013 and 11.04.2013, the wife of the accused by name Rathnamma was murdered in the house of the accused at Devithandre Village. The law is set into motion on the first information report lodged by the brother of the deceased who is examined as P.W.1. The first information statement is marked as Ex.P.3, wherein he has stated that at about 11 years prior to the incident, the deceased was married the accused and in the said wedlock they were having two children. Two years after the marriage, the accused addicted to drinking and started ill-treating the deceased, conciliations were also held and even inspite of the conciliation, he did not heed to the advice. The earlier incident was taken place in the year 2010, when the accused and his relatives ill-treated the deceased, she had lodged the complaint against them as per Ex.P.2. Thereafter she left the house of the accused and took refuge along with her children in the house of P.W.1 at Gulagunjihalli Village, Holenarasipura Taluk. After the investigation, Police filed a charge sheet and accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claims trial and hence, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.22 and also got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.35. The accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. However, on closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was subjected to 313 statement. The prosecution got marked material objects MO.1 to MO.3.

4. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence of the prosecution, comes to the conclusion considering the material on record i.e., homicidal death of the accused as deposed by P.W.14- Doctor and so also the death was taken place in the house of the accused as well as the accused last being seen in the company of the accused that has been spoken by P.W.2 and also there was no any explanation on the part of the accused that inspite of death was occurred in the house, he has not given any explanation. The Trial Court also taken note of the recovery of ornaments of the deceased from the possession under the instance of the accused, gold ornaments were pledged with P.W.17 and also taken note of the evidence of witness P.W.16 and comes to the conclusion that recovery is proved. The Trial Court also taken note of the false defence of alibi and murder by robbers which was the defence which was taken, but when the defence of alibi is taken and the same is not proved by the accused. The Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that there was an strained relationship between the accused and the deceased and comes to