THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 415(2) OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING TO ADMIT THE APPEAL AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SC NO.97/2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.2024 AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 24.10.2024 S.C.NO. 97/2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 302 AND 201 OF IPC, SENTENCING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT AND A FINE OF RS.5,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR THREE MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 302 OF THE IPC, AND A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AND A FINE OF RS.5,000/- IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR THREE MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 201 OF THE IPC AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 302 AND 201 OF THE IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and the learned Additional SPP on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant-accused seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC and prays this Court to acquit the appellant-accused for the charges levelled against him.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that, the accused and the deceased were having illicit relationship since 4-5 years and the accused was telling the deceased that he is going to marry another woman. For the said reason, the deceased had quarrelled with the accused and was objecting for his marriage. Hence, the accused was very angry with the deceased and he had a motive for committing her murder thinking that if she is alive, she would come in his way of getting married. On 23.07.2016, at 5.00 p.m., the accused came near the Tarikoppa-Bidaralli road near Suryagudda and was standing there. The deceased, who was working in her land, which was given by her to P.W.6 on lease basis, noticed the accused and went towards the agricultural pond where the accused was standing. Thereafter, the accused started quarrelling with the deceased, took her to the agricultural pond, which had no water and situated in the land bearing R.S.No.58 owned by Hanamappa Mallappa Iragar i.e., on the western side of Suryagudda. The accused pulled the deceased to the ground, closed her mouth and pressed her neck with a towel, which was tied on her head. The accused strangulated her using the said towel and committed her murder. Thereafter, he took the mobile phone and rolled gold Mangalya chain of the deceased. The accused, with an intention to destroy the evidence, covered the dead body of the deceased with leaves and twigs of tree branches. That, on 24.07.2016, the First Information/complaint was filed by the complainant at the spot of the incident. Thereafter, case was registered, investigation was conducted and the charge sheet was filed against the accused. The Trial Court, having received the police papers, took cognizance and framed charges against the accused. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.37 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.56 and M.O.1 to 14. The Trial Court, after closure of the evidence of prosecution, recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating circumstances but he did not choose to lead any defence evidence.

4. The Trial Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution solely rests upon the circumstantial evidence. The Trial Court has considered the evidence of last seen witnesses, the motive, the extra-judicial confession made before P.W.3 and P.W.16 and no effective cross-examination