on CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 8: 201 R/W SEC34 OF IPC AND SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR LIFE (3.: TO PAY A FINE OF RS.5,o00/- FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3022*-R/W OF IPc AND FURTHER SENTENCING HIM TO UND_E.RC~..O'~R.1 FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS & TO PAY A... FI_NE'--.oF Rs.2,000/-- AND LI) TO UNDERGO S.1 FOR A PERIOFJ---.oFr-._6' MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/..U/S 201 R/W". 34% OF IPC. BOTH THE SENTENCES IMPOSED ON~AC'CU_SflD"" SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE 1SENTIf3NCES= IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE SHALL RUN SIBPARATELY; '' 'V = A THESE APPEALS COMING ON.,_F'OR IiE}"IRl.NG _f;1"1L-ilsdj DAY, KSREEDHAR RAO J. DEL_W"ERED 'mE..F'QLLoWINo: .3UDGMEN_'I*_ I A T he material facts}-of the.'-pdfo.se,ci1tion case disclose that done the deceased. One Sri «the husband of the deceased. One_--Sri. ShiIra:U;dFa~?W2 is the son of the deceased. " '~ ..,.,A1:$pe11a'nt "1'~.lo.l(A Appellant No.2 [A2] are friends. relationship with the deceased and he had b1"o~ugh_t '11e.I' a cow and also lent some amount by Way of loan. "The deceased was also attending to the ""ag1'icultural work of Al. A1 insisted the deceased to '*"1*eturn the loan amount. The deceased refused to repay the amount. A1 bearing grouse against deceased with the assistance of A2, on 25.01.2004 at about 11 pm. caused murder of the deceased by strangulation"-,and dropped the dead body in a dry weil. " 2. The dead body was noticed on 27.01.2004
at 8.00 am, who
police registered a case under Secti_or1
accused is shown as ‘not ieriowri’. “-Indtheyg inquest
proceedings Al is sh.¢wn idtoi-be”~–asp ‘suspect’. In the
course of investigationwitreveais ‘thatthe deceased left
home around the accused
and around lO.30 p.m. on
25.01.0’004- she was found to be dead.
The {dead subjected to post mortem. The post
that the death is due to asphyxia
to”sti’ar1g’u.l:ation. The death is homicidal.
A1 is arrested on 05.02.2004. The
.rVui.11brelia belonging to deceased was recovered. A2 was
0 “produced before the CPI on the same day. On the basis
his voluntary statement, M09; 12 and 13 used for
dropping the dead body in the Well were recovered. The
Qfi”/,0
accused are charged for committing offences under
Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 ofIPC.
4. PW–3 who is supposed to testify
seen circumstance of the accused and deceased
together on 25.01.2004 ar0und»:’1″O…3p0 if
hostile and does not support ‘easel
6, the husband of the decVeas.e*d’, te.stifies.,t_’o t}2Ve’VVfi1otive.’V’
The medical evidence. ditsclors_e:sVV””that the “death is
homicidal. The trial court the evidence
regarding mo’tiv.ef’,’- recovery’, coiipled___vvith post mortem
reporfffvhas’ arid. for the above offences.
Accused are in .app’e.al’;’ -. ” =
RA fth’or.Q’.tJgh consideration of the evidence
‘ £llS€1QSve:S”T;i’i.a.f -the prosecution tried to establish the guilt
by””lcircu’injstantia1 evidences like motive, last seen
— ‘ circumstance, recovery, homicidal death and
aloscondence of accused. PW~3 who is supposed to
testify the last seen circumstance has turned hostile.
The recovery evidence adduced by the prosecution is
fragile and frivolous. The evidence of PW~2 does not
corroborate the fact that the deceased on 25.01.2004,
went out from house around 9.45 pm. taking umbrella
with her. The rope MO’s l2 and 13 recovered fat»sthe
incidence of A2 does not have any incriminatinlg;rriaififis.
or material to show that it was -..
dropping the dead body in the
strangulation was Well intact around oi?
deceased at the time when vvasilnciticed. The
prosecution on record_xhas’l–_onjly” esltahlished the motive
and the circumstanceof -IE1’0rVr1ic’i,dalV’_dea.th. There is no
clinching l’evidenc.el .tlo~,1’prove” the complicity of the
accused uwith ‘thefjevidence. The recovery evidence is
incredible. ‘V
V In that ‘v’i’e’vv of the matter there is no credible
tdipirove the guilt of the accused. The
convictions-f the accused is bad in law.
it The appeals are allowed. Accused are set free
uforthwith, if not required to be detained in any other
wk
case. The fine amount deposited by A2 shall be
refunded to A2.
The fee of Sri. Somashekar 1
Amicus Curiae, is fixed at Rs.7,000:[–. A’
the fee to the Amicus Curiae.
e JUDGE
1’8