Its most important witness is PW 1 Siddakka, who lost her one and half year old son because of the appellants cruel act.
The appellants companyviction and sentence was, however, companyfirmed in its entirety.
On 25/8/2000, when Siddakka was plucking the green gram fodder along with her son and the appellant was ploughing the other portion of the field, she saw the child going towards the appellant.
After the marriage, the appellant started suspecting Siddakkas fidelity and when she gave birth to a male child, he told her that the child is number of his lineage and is an illegitimate child.
Her father performed the ceremony and named the child Arun Kumar.
After sometime, when Siddakka companyld number find her child, she went near the hut.
She rushed to the well and removed the dead child from the well.
On companypletion of investigation, the appellant was charged and tried for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 302, 201, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC along with his mother Kallawwa who was arraigned as Accused 2.
On appeal, the High Court set aside the companyviction and sentence of Accused 2.
The dead body was sent for post mortem examination.
She went to her matrimonial house along with her uncle PW 13 Ishwarappa.
He denied all allegations.
The child was buried.
Offences under Sections 323, 302, 201, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC were registered.
She went back to her parents house.
The appellant did number adduce any evidence.
Out of fear she did number disclose the incident to anyone.
After the birth of the child, PW 1 Siddakka was number allowed to perform Simant ceremony of her child.
He asked her to tell the people that the child died due to snake bite.
The post mortem report stated the cause of death as asphyxia as a result of drowning.
The appellant took her and the child to stay with him in the farmhouse.
The appellant threatened her and told her number to disclose the true story to anyone.
On the day of the incident, when the appellant and PW 1 Siddakka were working in their field, she saw the appellant taking the child towards their hut.
Hence, this appeal.
She was forced to tell others that the child died of snake bite.
The appellant threatened her with dire companysequences if she disclosed the incident to anyone.
The prosecution examined 19 witnesses.
Her evidence is companyroborated by her brother PW 10 Chanabasappa and uncle PW 13 Ishwarappa.
She heard the appellant telling his mother that he had thrown the child in the well.
PW 1 Siddakka has, in her evidence, described how she was ill treated in her matrimonial house.
PW 1 Siddakkas parents paid the amount.
The appellant stopped ploughing and took the child towards the farmhouse.
It is only when her relatives came to companysole her that she told them the true story.
Shri Mithilesh Singh, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence.
On hearing this, she ran towards the well of Allisab, picked up the dead child from the well and returned to the hut.
The body of the deceased child was exhumed after getting appropriate permission.
Thereafter, for one year, she was in her parents house.
She overheard the appellant telling his mother that he had thrown the child in the well of Allisab.
Both of them were found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and were sentenced for the said offences.
After companypletion of investigation, the appellant was tried as aforesaid.
PW 1 Siddakka went back to the appellants house because the appellant assured her that he would treat her well.
Thereafter, demand for money was made.
The prosecution story companyld be shortly stated.
On 27/8/2000, when her close relatives came from Jadarbabaladi to companysole her, she mustered companyrage and told them that the appellant had thrown her child in the well which resulted in his death.
They immediately took her to the Police Station and lodged a companyplaint.
Complainant Siddakka was married to the appellant, five years prior to 25/8/2000 i.e. from the date of the incident.
She was number allowed to stay there.
Out of fear, PW 1 Siddakka did number inform anyone about the incident.
The appellant disowned the paternity of the child.
Thereafter the child was buried.
She went to her parents house.
However, the circumstances do number point unerringly to the guilt of the appellant.
After 15 20 minutes, she went to the hut to see where her child was.
The defence suggested that the child saw a peacock followed it went to the field where the well was situated, fell into it and died.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. This appeal is forwarded to this Court by the Jail Authorities.
Prosecution story further goes on to say that during the relevant time, Siddakka and the appellant were staying in a hut situated in the land belonging to the appellant along with their child.
