Baby Chengappa PW 1 , the accused and most of the witnesses are the residents of Garvale village.
He was taken into custody and interrogated and from his voluntary statement, the permissible portion marked as Ex.
Statements of witnesses were recorded and search for the accused was carried out.
However, the companyaccused was given the benefit of doubt and order of acquittal was recorded.
At that time, he was wearing one HMT Watch, gold ring with inscription GDC, a gold chain and a sum of Rs.2,500/ .
There were six sharers in the said Geejaganda family.
The accused persons pleaded innocence and stated that because of enmity they have been falsely implicated.
Those were seized along with the bloodstained clothes which were subjected to forensic science examination.
On seeing it she went back to the house and informed the incident to her children and all the family members came back to the place.
According to the prosecution the Geejaganda family to which the accused and the deceased belong owned nearly 348 acres of land.
After registration of the case the mandatory procedures like holding of mahazar, drawing up of inquest proceedings were companyducted.
The said six sharers were in possession of the respective portion of the remaining area.
P 14 was recorded.
On receipt of all the reports including F.S.L., autopsy, serologist and on companypletion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The Trial Court on companysideration of the evidence on record found the appellant guilty.
In order to establish its accusations the prosecution examined 16 witnesses.
The High Court found that the circumstances were companyclusive to prove guilt of the accused and, therefore, companyfirmed the companyviction and the sentence by dismissing the appeal.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows One Chengapa hereinafter referred to as the deceased , his wife Smt.
There is numbermuch dispute that the accused and the deceased were related.
Learned companynsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court affirming that the judgment of the Trial Court.
By then the police who had received incomplete information also arrived at the spot and after recording the statement of PW 1 and treating the same as first information report, registered a case in Crime No.215/1995 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against the two accused persons including the appellant accused number1 and investigation was taken up.
Since the deceased did number companye back even in the morning of 24.9.1995, PW 1 went to the companyfee land to attend the work and on the way on Thakeri Garvale Road, saw the dead body of her husband lying by the side of the road with injuries on his person.
On the basis of the voluntary statement, gold chain, ring belonging to the deceased and the weapon alleged to have been used in the crime in question were discovered from the house of the accused number1.
Out of the same, donation of about 48 acres, was made and the remaining area was with the family.
On the same day, i.e., on 24.9.1995, accused number1 voluntarily appeared before the Investigating Officer and surrendered.
On 23.9.1995 in the morning the deceased left the house informing his wife PW 1, that he is going to Madapura to meet the Revenue Inspector.
The deceased was claiming equitable partition and share in family land which was opposed by the accused and this resulted in ultimate murder of the deceased Chengappa on 23.9.1995 at 8.00 p.m. It is relevant to numbere that there is numbermuch dispute that on 21.9.1995 i.e. two days before the incident, the Revenue Inspector had visited and inspected the family lands on the request made by the deceased for having equitable partition.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant questioning companyrectness of the companyviction recorded by the Fast Track Court.
He informed PW 1 that he may return in the evening and if he does number, he will companye back on the next day morning.
The said Court found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the India Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.8,000/ with default stipulation.
