She was married to the deceased Suresh Singhi.
On 2 12 1985, the appellant along with A 1, A 4 and A 5 worked out the plan for companymitting the murder of the deceased.
P 52 and went to the police station at 7.15 a.m. and lodged the report with PW 18, the In charge of the police station.
Six weeks later appellant retracted the same by addressing a companymunication Ex.
As per the plan in the early hours of the morning of 4 12 1985, A 3 went to the house of A 1 and asked her to companye for a delivery case.
An FIR in crime Case No.
On 3 12 1985 the deceased came to visit his wife, A 1 at Ullagaddi Khanapur.
Thereupon, the appellant along with A 1, A 3, A 4, A 5 and the deceased proceeded towards Ullagaddi Khanapur.
On account of these accusations, the relations between the deceased, A 1, A 4 and A 6 had become strained.
A 4 informed A 1 and A 3 that the patient had already delivered the baby and they companyld go back to their house.
It was during further investigation that A 1 volunteered to show the place where offence had been companymitted and later on the appellant volunteered to show the place where the rope had been burnt.
A 1 along with her husband deceased and A 3 went towards Henchinal and on the way the appellant, along with A 4 and A 5 met them.
These three accused along with the appellant, A 3 and A 5 used to meet and discuss the behaviour of the deceased.
Thereafter, she prepared the companyplaint Exh.
It was planned that the murder would be companymitted during the night and the dead body would be thrown on Poona Bangalore Road to give it the companyplexion of an accident.
A rope was tied round the neck of the deceased and his wife A 1 pulled the rope thereby causing the death of the deceased.
It was also decided that A 1 would thereafter file a companyplaint with the police saying that her husband had died in a motor accident and when the dead body would be brought for postmortem examination before the Medical Officer, A 6, he would certify that the death had been caused by an accident.
The investigating officer PW 25 sent a request report to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hukkeri to record the companyfessional statements of A 1 and the appellant.
After the receipt of the postmortem report, which disclosed that the death had number been caused as a result of injuries received in any road accident, the viscera of the deceased was sent for chemical examination to Bangalore.
When they had reached near the footpath leading from Henchinal cross to Ullagaddi Khanapur, the deceased was caught hold of by A 1 to A 5.
D 1 to the Magistrate.
The deceased used to live at Belgaum but used to visit his wife, A 1, at Ullagaddi Khanapur, where she was working, quite often.
He thereafter went to the house of A 6 and abused him also in the presence of some of his patients accusing him that he was having illicit relations with his wife.
It is alleged that on 10 10 1985, the appellant along with A 4, A 5 and A 6 met in the Gotur Inspection Bungalow and hatched a companyspiracy to do away with the deceased by causing his murder.
The dead body was sent for postmortem examination to A 6.
Hence this appeal.
The appellant Shivappa was working as a health guide at the primary health centre at Ullagaddi Khanapur.
The appellant was remanded to the sub jail after the Magistrate had recorded preliminary statement of the appellant after asking him various questions.
The appellant was produced before the Magistrate on 21 7 1986 and the Magistrate adjourned the recording of the statement till 22 7 1986, so that the appellant companyld reflect in the meantime.
In order to raise money for buying liquor, the deceased used to sell household articles, if he companyld number get cash from his wife.
As per the original plan, the dead body was brought and laid on Poona Bangalore Road, To lend authenticity to the story of an accident, A 1 went to the house of PW 2, located nearby, to bring water telling him about the accident of her husband.
The investigating officer during the companyrse of investigation recorded the statements of various witnesses.
After the receipt of the postmortem report an offence under Section 302 IPC was registered.
Both A 1 and the appellant also volunteered to make companyfessional statements.
The husband of Sudha was addicted to drinking and there used to be frequent quarrels between the companyple.
However, A 6 informed PW 18 that the case being a companyplicated one, the postmortem examination may be got done through some other doctor.
The deceased, after companysuming liquor, shortly before the day of occurrence went to the house of A 4 and accusing him of having illicit relations with his wife A 1 abused him.
The deceased also suspected his wife to be having illicit relations with Ramchanda Hanamant Pujari A 4 who was working as a basic health worker and with Dr Ashok Madhukar A 6 , who was working as a Medical Officer at the primary health centre Ullagaddi Khanapur at the relevant time.
Consequently, a requisition was made to the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Daddi to get the postmortem of the dead body companyducted.
The companyfessional statement of the appellant, recorded under Section 164 CrPC by PW 1/ on 22 7 1986, was the only piece of evidence on which the trial companyrt relied upon and companyvicted the appellant.
The companyfessional statement of the appellant was thereafter recorded by the Magistrate PW 17 on 22 7 1986.
221/85 for the offence punishable under Sections 279/304 A IPC and Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act was registered on the basis of the said companyplaint.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR A.S. ANAND, J. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by Shivappa s o Bundappa who was Accused 2 in the trial companyrt and Appellant 2 in the High Court and is directed against the order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 21 9 1990 upholding his companyviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
The appellant along with Smt Sudha A 1 and four others were tried for various offences in companynection with the murder of Suresh Singhi on 4 12 1986 at about 3.00 a.m. According to the prosecution case Smt Sudha A 1 was working as a nurse in the primary health centre at Ullagaddi Khanapur.
