The appellant - State has filed the present appeal

against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal

dated 25.03.2019 passed in S.C.No.158/2017 by the

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, acquitting

the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of the IPC.

2.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

On 29.05.2017, PW1 - Mahantesh lodged a complaint

(Ex.P1) to the SHO of Alnavar Police Station, alleging that

his younger sister Laxmi was given in marriage to the

accused about 10 years ago prior to the date of incident

and after the marriage, their relationship was cordial and

later accused started quarreling with Laxmi unnecessarily

and without any reason, started to assault her; whenever

Laxmi visited her parental house, this fact was informed to

- 3 -

her parents and brothers. On 28.05.2017 in the late

night, PW1 received a phone call from one Prakash

Fakirappa Kullannavar (PW9), being the neighbour of the

house of the accused and informed that at 11.00 pm, the

accused picked up quarrel with Laxmi and assaulted her

with pickaxe on her head and thereby committed murder.

Thus, PW1, his parents and his relatives rushed to the

house of accused and saw the dead body of the deceased

Laxmi, which was lying in the pool of blood and hence PW1

lodged the complaint (Ex.P1).

Based on the aforesaid complaint lodged by PW1, the

jurisdictional police registered Crime No.54/2017 against

the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302

of the IPC and later the Investigating Officer took up the

investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused

for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

After committal of the case to the the Court of

Sessions, the accused appeared through his counsel.

Thereafter, charge has been framed against the accused

- 4 -

for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC,

explained the same to the accused, he pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried.

In order to prove the charges against the accused,

the prosecution in all examined 22 witnesses as PWs. 1 to

22 and got marked 32 documents as per Exs. P1 to P32

and 7 material objects as M.Os. 1 to 7. On behalf of the

defence, Exs. D1 to D4 have been marked.

3.

After completion of the evidence on behalf of

the

prosecution,

statement

of

the

accused

as

contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by

the trial Court. The accused denied all the incriminating

material appearing against him, but he did not lead any

defence evidence.

4.

The learned Sessions Judge after considering

the entire evidence on record, has recorded the finding

that the prosecution has failed to prove that, on

28.05.2017 at 11.00 pm, the accused took up quarrel with

- 5 -

the deceased and committed her murder with pickaxe, and

accordingly

acquitted

the

accused

of

the

offence

punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, holding that the

prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable

doubt. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State

has preferred this appeal.

5.

We have heard Sri. V. M. Banakar, learned

counsel for the appellant-State and Sri. S. A. Sandur,

learned counsel for the respondent-accused.

6.

Sri.

V.

M.

Banakar,

learned

Addl.

SPP,

contended that the judgment and order of acquittal passed

by the trial Court is contrary to law, facts and evidence on

record. The same is not sustainable in the eye of law.

The learned Addl. SPP further submits that, PW1 is the

brother of deceased Laxmi, PW12 - Mahadevappa, the

father of the deceased, PW10 - Smt.Tulasavva is the

neighbour of deceased and accused and these witnesses

have consistently and categorically stated about the stay

of deceased along with children with the accused in the

- 6 -

house, and the said fact has not been denied by the

accused in the cross-examination of witnesses and also in

the statement of accused recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C; But the trial Court has not properly appreciated

this aspect and thereby erred in acquitting t