.. 1 .,
m THE man COURT on KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF' JANUARY, 2010
PRESENT '_
TI-IE HON'BLE MR.JUsTicE KSREEDHAR
AND 1. _ 1:
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B:,AD1L " H
CRIMINAL APPEAL No,_1s4_6/2606' " = 1:. '
I
Sadananda Poojary
S/o Babu Poojary,
Aged 42 years,
R/o Dwaraka House,
Andinje Village.
Beltangadi Taluk, 1 ' A _ V = ._
Dakshina Kannada'D_istI'iet§'"" * V. ' I .,..APPELLANT
[By Sri. G. Suresh A} ~ 3'
Sri. C.H. Hand;imantharayafiQtdtfs-J:.r 3
AND:
The State ofli{§1fnatalia.'.l. " 3
By: Venoor P.S';,._ '
_ .. _Be1taP.gadii'~Circle. " A V 'V
D--ai:s'13.ina.,K.arinada District. . . RESPONDENT
Addl. sppy
‘ .__This.Crinr;inal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., by
the Advoeatev “for the appellant against the judgment dated:
2.4.7.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore, in
_ Al”S.C.No.94/2004 -~« convicting the appellant/accused for the
” “ofi”ence”_«punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing
__ =hi”1n ltonndergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable
lnncier Section 302 of IPC and also sentenced to pay 3. fine of
_ -,l”Rs’.’1,000/- I.D., to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one
_ finonth.
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day,
SREEDHAR RAO J. delivered the following:
q?,
JVDGMENT
The material facts of the prosecution case disc.lose’i~t_hat,
one Smt. Jayanthi is the wife of accused.
about 19 years prior to the incident.”MPW2 aged.
about 15 years. The accused is ariiack.-.Ve:ndor..
suspected that, the accused has.__illicitr.relationship.:yyith; some*.
other woman. In that regard there’ to quarrels.
The accused was in the of–‘_heatilng__U._1dedeceased.
2. On l3,7.2004…a.f,:.9–.r0Ci._p.m;’.”the’:accused came home
after closing him for late coming
and for h__aVi_ng with other Woman. There was
some deceased slept in a room. PW2
_ and accused” another room. PW2 when he woke up
arou “pm. to attend nature’s call, he found his father
W’as’n__ot sleep_ing’ his side, but he was in the room Where his
V dd _ mother was sleeping. The door was locked from inside. He heard
dd . noiseof. quarrel between his father and mother. He took that
as a routine quarrel and he slept. In the morning he
‘~wol;;e up and found his mother lying motionless on the cot and
A 9’ ‘ ” his father was sitting outside the house and weeping and he did
not answer any of the questions of PW2.
%.
_3_
3. PW2 telephoned to PWI — brother of the deceased
that his mother is lying motionless on the cot. PW1 along with
his parents come to the house of the accused. They the
deceased lying dead with ligature mark around
lodged the complaint — Ex.Pl before the police”
the basis of EXP} case is registeredlilagainst’
Investigation further reveals that accused gmade’; fe;~:tra,
judicial confession to PW3. m”o1’te_m’*repoiftfdisclosesl
that, there was ligature neck.’ death is due
to asphyxia on account the voluntary
instance of the. M.O.4 used for
strangulation? Vjrnaliazar. The accused is
charged U./ls. 302 IPC.
4. discloses that, on the date of
incident his fatheiaciameito his house at 9.00 p.m. The mother
H”~._took«.objection:for late coming and for having illicit relationship
wi,t.h”other There was a quarrel between them. After the
V .meals””movthei*”s1ept in one room. PW2 and the accused slept in
if .u’anoth.er room. PW2 woke up at 11.30 p.m. to attend the nature’s
“He heard the noise of quarrel between his mother and
twfather in the room where his mother was sleeping. He takes the
it ” ” incident as a routine affair and goes to sleep. In the morning, he
woke up and found that his mother is lying motionless on the
AD/
_4_ ‘
cot and his father is sitting outside and weeping. PW3 is also an
arrack Vendor and friend of the accused. The accused on
15.7.2004 makes extra judicial confession that _4therel’~.Was
quarrei, his wife assaulted him with rope, he sna..tched”V.’t’het
and strangtilated her. ,
5. The post mortem report’:.’di$c1o’ses =t1′”1a_t, tl”i:e1=e”*.vas
ligature mark around the necl{_”‘e;:ce}§t’v~ 50f the’
plaited hair. PW11 — the doctor__4_l:w’ho’conducted post mortem
stated that, death is due tostrangulation and it
is homicidal death. The :Trial of the above
evidence U/s. 302 IPC. The
accusediis in’ap;neal.V7t _ 0′
6. 0 accused »-hafsteicamined the doctor to prove that
the st1_fangulation~. suicidal strangulation and not homicidal
0′ “Itis the defence of the accused that, the deceased
rescued, brought her down and made her
_ sieep”‘–on ‘cot. But by that time she was found dead. The
defence version does not appear to be credible. The evidence of
csitablishes that around 11.30 p.m. he saw his father in the
room aiong with his mother and there was a quarrel. in the
” vmorning he finds mother tying motionless in the cot, his father
found Weeping without answering any questions.
%/
-5-
of IPC and sentenced to R1. for a period of six years. The
accused is entitled for benefit of setmoff U / s.428 of Cr.P.C.
a=AP/M