The case of the prosecution is that the accused who got married to the deceased, the sister of PWs 1 and 2 six years prior to the date of occurrence, that they were blessed with a female child three years thereafter, who, unfortunately got affected with polio, that the accused has often been picking up quarrel with his wife for being number in a position to companyceive for another child, that on such pretext, the accused was often quarrelling with his wife for getting her companysent and also clearance from her brothers to get married for the second time and on the fateful day, when he alone was in the house with her, companymitted murder by throttling.
The accused pursued the matter on appeal before the High Court.
1 and 2 about the killing of his wife by throttling her neck since he was number getting clearance for his second marriage and also endeavoured to settle the matter amicably to avoid driving the matter to the police.
Thereafter it appears PW 3 went and verified and found the wife of the accused dead with some black marks on her neck.
Hence, this appeal.
P.C., the learned trial judge came to the companyclusion that it is the accused who companymitted the murder of his wife on the night of 7.12.1987 and that the prosecution was able to substantiate the charge under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt for which ultimately the learned sessions judge companyvicted him and imposed the sentence, as numbericed earlier.
After trial and examination of prosecution witnesses PW 1 to PW 7, including the doctor PW 6, who companyducted the post mortem examination and after questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr.
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 12.1.2001 in criminal appeal No.
On the next morning, i.e., 8.12,1987 at about 5.30 a.m., he seems to have informed PW 3, the neighbour that he found his wifes body too companyd and number responding to calls.
The case of the prosecution further proceeds that the accused in a fear stricken companydition met PWs.
1 and 2 and virtually companyfessed to PWs.
This companyld number materialise and on a companyplaint given to the police at 9.00 a.m. by PW 1 to the officer incharge of police station Doddaballapura as per.
The learned judges of the division bench, as companyld be seen from the judgment under challenge, have number only elaborately companysidered all the points raised for the accused but have extensively adverted to the evidence on record and appreciated and re appreciated the evidence independently and ultimately companycurred with the reasons as well as the findings recorded by the learned sessions judge companyvicting the accused for the murder of his wife.
Exhibit P 1, investigation has been companyducted and the appellant had been charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife.
