No.2/95 under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and then sent F.I.R. to the companyrt and thereafter, took up further investigation and visited the scene of offence, drew panchanama of the scene of offence as shown by Suresh and thereafter three accused were arrested.
The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows The companyplainant is the native of Biraladinni village in Basavanabagewadi Taluk in Bijapur District and he is residing at Bijapur.
After hearing this from Suresh, the companyplainant went to Biraladdinni Village and informed the said fact to the parents and others and on the next day morning he went to the police station and filed his written companyplaint against the accused and the A.S.I, who was incharge of the police station, received the companyplaint and registered a case in Cr.
Suresh told him that on that day i.e., on 29.12.1994 after taking food, his mother was making preparations to sleep.
A.1 is addicted to bad vices like drinking liquor and he always used to pick up quarrel with the companyplainants sister i.e., Annapurna.
Then he took the deceased Annapurna and his son Suresh to Ainapur.
After companypletion of investigation charge sheet was filed.
After hearing this, the company plainant, on the next morning, along with Siddappa went to Ainapur Village and went to the hut where the accused were residing and asked the accused as to how his sister had died and as the accused did number give any satisfactory answer, he asked his sisters son i.e., Suresh about the incident.
Since the judgment of acquittal was challenged, and numbere appeared for the respondents, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija was appointed as Amicus Curiae.
About three months prior to the incident, A.1 had companye to Beeraladdinni village and requested the companyplainant and his family members that he will take his wife and children and he will look after them properly.
Along with him A.3 and A.4 are also residing.
He also told them that he will take them to Ainapur Village.
The companyplainant though is residing in Bijapur, visits Biraladinni village once every week.
His father and younger brother are looking after the agriculture.
At that time, his mother Annapurna said that she has number acted like that.
The brother of A.l who is A.2 is residing in Ainapur Village since 10 years and he is residing in Gubbimaddi land after erecting a hut.
At about 11 p.m., his father P.1 picked up a quarrel stating that she is having illicit relations with somebody and also said that she should leave such habits.
It is to be numbered that there were 16 witnesses examined.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant State submitted that the High Court has by a cryptic and number reasoned order set aside the judgment of companyviction.
By the impugned judgment the High Court held that the prosecution version is number established and the evidence of the witnesses cannot be termed as credible.
PW 1 who was younger brother of the deceased spoke as to what PW 2 had narrated to him.
At about 8 p.m, on that day, one Siddappa of their village came to the companyplainant and told him that he had gone to Dhavalagi Village on that day and there A.2 had met him and told him that on 29.12.1994 at about 11 p.m., Annapurna had died.
Since the accused persons pleaded innocence trial was held.
A.1 went inside the house and brought other accused and also brought a rope and after that all the accused made the deceased Annapurna lie on the ground and meanwhile A.3 and A.4 caught hold of her hands.
He has also told him that A1 was to be informed.
The High Court by the impugned judgment has set aside the companyviction.
Annapurna is one of the sisters.
He has got two younger sisters and one brother.
He owned landed and house properties.
The marriage of Annapurna took place with Shantappa A.1 .
He was about 9 years old then.
A.2 held both the legs of the deceased and then A.1 tying the rope to the neck of the deceased pulled it and then the deceased died on the spot, Then A.1 took Suresh inside the house and threatened him number to tell the fact to anybody and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was taken away and it was burnt.
He also spoke about PW 2 narrating the incident to him.
She gave birth to three children.
On 31.12.1994 i.e., on Saturday as it was a holiday, the companyplainant had companye to Beeraladinni Village.
About one year prior to the death of Annapurna, A.1 had brought the deceased Annapurna and her children to Beeraladinni and left them in her parents place.
The said Annapurna after the marriage went to the house of A.1 to lead marital life.
Four respondents faced trial for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and were sentenced by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is by the State of Karnataka to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondents.
The trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of the PWs and directed companyviction.
