Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 997 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. S. Siddaraju

2011-10-13

K.GOVINDARAJULU, N.ANANDA

body2011
JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—The State has filed this appeal against judgment of acquittal of respondent (hereinafter referred to as accused) for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 2. We have heard Sri. N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned Government Pleader for State and Sri. B. Anand, learned Amicus Curiae for accused. We have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows: The accused is the husband of deceased Roopa. Their marriage had taken place about two years prior to 22.10.2000. P.W. 2-Doddamma, P.W. 12-Siddarajamma are the elder sisters of deceased, P.W. 4-Gurusiddaiah is the husband of P.W. 2. P.W. 11-Chikka Kalluriah is the father of deceased. After the marriage, the deceased stayed in the house of accused in his native place, Averahalli, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District. After a period of one year the accused and deceased came to Bangalore and they were living in the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4. At the relevant time, P.W. 2 was working in a Garment factory and P.W. 4 was working in a cable factory near Hosur road. The deceased Prenia was also working in a Garment factory. The accused was working in Prasad Cylinder factory at Hosur road. The accused and deceased stayed in the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4 for a period of 4 months. Thereafter, they took a small house for rent from P.W. 1-Muriiyappa. Thereafter they were living separately from P.Ws. 2 and 4. The house in which the accused and deceased were residing was situate at a distance of 100 feet from the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4. The accused was frequently ill-treating and assaulting the deceased and demanding her to give money. The deceased used to come and stay in the house of her sister (P.W. 2). P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 advised the accused to mend his behavior, however, the accused did not stop beating and ill-treating the deceased. The deceased conceived, when she was in advanced stage of pregnancy, P.W. 2 brought the deceased to her house. Thus, the deceased was staying in the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4 and accused was alone staying in the house, which he had taken on lease from P.W. 1-Muniyappa. The accused had demanded the deceased to live in his house. However, the deceased had refused. Thus, the deceased was staying in the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4 and accused was alone staying in the house, which he had taken on lease from P.W. 1-Muniyappa. The accused had demanded the deceased to live in his house. However, the deceased had refused. On 22.10.2000, during afternoon, when the deceased was alone in the house of P.W. 2, accused demanded her to come and live with him. When she refused, accused strangulated the deceased with his lungi and left that place. When P.Ws. 2 and 4 entered their house, they found that deceased Prema was strangled to death. P.W. 2 had seen the accused entering her house before the incident, P.Ws. 2 and 4 had seen the accused hastily walking away from their house after the incident. P.W. 2 lodged the first information against the accused with Hehbagodi P.S., and set the law into motion. The accused was arrested on 23.10.2000. After completion of investigation, the Investigating officer filed charge sheet against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 4. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 14 were examined, documents as per Ex.P1 to P8 and material objects as per MOs. 1 and 2 were marked. On behalf of accused, the accused got himself examined as DW, I and one Prabhuswamy was examined as DW.2, The accused had pleaded alibi. 5. The accused has specifically contended that on the date of incident, he was in his village, which is at a distance of 100 kilometers from Bangalore. On the following day, i.e., on 23.10.2000, during morning he returned to Bangalore and learnt about the death of his wife and also about compliant lodged against him. The accused visited Hebbagodi police station and questioned about, the death of his wife where he was detained and arrested. 6. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing the learned counsel for parties acquitted the accused by assigning following reasons: (i) P.W. 1 who is a witness for inquest has not stated that the death of Prema was either homicidal or suicidal. (ii) P.W. 2 who had seen the accused going to her house should have slaved back in her house. (iii) The prosecution has not offered any explanation as to why the accused had not taken the lungi of P.W. 4 to strangulate the deceased. (iv) The evidence of P.W. 7-Dr. (ii) P.W. 2 who had seen the accused going to her house should have slaved back in her house. (iii) The prosecution has not offered any explanation as to why the accused had not taken the lungi of P.W. 4 to strangulate the deceased. (iv) The evidence of P.W. 7-Dr. K.H. Manjunath and the contents of postmortem examination report do not conclusively prove that the death of Prema was homicidal in nature. (v) The evidence adduced by the accused in proof of alibi is satisfactory. (vi) The investigating officer had falsely implicated the accused, as he was not able to trace the real culprit. 7. The medical evidence given by P.W. 7-Dr. K.H. Manjunath and the contents of postmortem examination report marked as per Ex. P6 have not been controverted by the accused. The evidence of P.W. 7 and the contents of post-mortem examination report would reveal that the deceased was strangled to death. P.W. 7 has deposed that at the time of death, deceased was carrying pregnancy of 8½ months. The evidence given by P.W. 7 that the death of Prema was due to strangulation and MO. 2-lungi could have been used to strangle the deceased has not been controverted, but for making an hypothetical suggestion to P.W. 7 that the deceased might have committed suicide by using lungi (MO. 2), P.W. 7 has denied the suggestion. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4 that the deceased was strangled to death by using lungi (MO.2) has not been controverted. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the homicidal death of Prema at about 2.30 p.m., on. 22.10.2000 in the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4. The learned trial Judge has unnecessarily suspected the medical evidence and the contents of post-mortem examination report to hold that the death of Prema was due to compression of neck. Therefore, medical evidence would belie the case of prosecution that the deceased was strangled to death. The learned trial Judge has failed to notice that compression of neck can be caused by strangulation with ligature and it could also be caused by manual strangulation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Judge has assigned untenable reasons to discard the medical evidence of P.W. 7-Dr. K.H. Manjunath and contents of post-mortem examination report. 8. The prosecution has examined P.Ws. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Judge has assigned untenable reasons to discard the medical evidence of P.W. 7-Dr. K.H. Manjunath and contents of post-mortem examination report. 8. The prosecution has examined P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to prove that soon before the incident, the accused had entered the house of P.W. 2 on the pretext of talking to his wife. After the incident, the accused was hastily walking away from the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4, In a way, the prosecution has examined these witnesses to prove that shortly before commission of crime, the accused and deceased were seen together in the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4. 9. Before appreciating evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4, it is necessary to state that the evidence given by P.W. 1 that the accused and deceased had taken one of the houses belonging to P.W. 1 on lease the accused and deceased were staying in that house for a period of 4 months; there used to be frequent quarrels between the accused and deceased; since two months prior to the date of incident deceased was staying in the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4 has not been controverted. During cross-examination, it has been suggested to P.W. 1 that the accused and deceased were staying in the house of P.W. 1 since 4 months prior to the date of incident. 10. In proof of strained relationship of accused and deceased, we have the evidence of close relatives of deceased viz. P.W. 2-Doddamma (elder sister of the deceased) P.W. 4-Gurusiddaiah (husband of P.W. 2). P.W. 11-Chikka Kalluraiah (father of deceased) and P.W. 12-Siddarajamma (elder sister of deceased). P.W. 11 has deposed that accused was not taking proper care of the deceased and he used to frequently assault and ill-treat the deceased. Therefore, P.W. 11 had come to Bangalore and had left the deceased in the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4, This was about two months prior to the date of incident. This evidence has not been controverted by the accused. The accused examined as D.W. 1 has not deposed that on the date of incident or before the incident, his wife (deceased) was living with him. Therefore, we can safely conclude that the relationship between the accused and deceased was strained since few months before the date of incident. 11. P.Ws. This evidence has not been controverted by the accused. The accused examined as D.W. 1 has not deposed that on the date of incident or before the incident, his wife (deceased) was living with him. Therefore, we can safely conclude that the relationship between the accused and deceased was strained since few months before the date of incident. 11. P.Ws. 2 and 4 have deposed that the accused was demanding the deceased to join him. The deceased who had been ill-treated and harassed. by the accused was not willing to join him. The accused for the refusal of deceased to join him had. grudge against her. We have the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 5, in proof of events that had happened on the date of incident. 12. P.W. 2-Doddamma is the elder sister of deceased, P.W. 2 has deposed that the marriage of accused and deceased was performed about 2 years prior to the date of incident. After the marriage, accused and deceased were staying in the house of accused in Averahalli village, Malavalli Taluk. At the relevant time, P.W. 2 and her husband were staying in a rented house in Hebbagodi at Bangalore. P.W. 2 was working in garment factory and her husband was working in cable factory. About 8 months prior to 22.10.2000, the accused had brought his wife, [deceased] to Bangalore and both of them were staying in the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4 for a period of two months. Accused took a small house belonging to P.W. 1 on lease. The accused and deceased shifted their residence and they were staying in the house of P.W. 1. There used to be frequent quarrels between the accused and deceased. The accused was demanding money from the deceased. P.Ws. 2 and 4 had pacified the accused and deceased. Even thereafter, the accused did not mend his behavior. P.W. 2 secured her parents from Mysore; to advise the accused. The parents of deceased came from Mysore and advised the accused and deceased. Thereafter, the accused and deceased were cordial for a period of one week and again they started quarrelling. The deceased came to the house of P.W. 2 and started staying there for a period of one month as the accused used to frequently harass and beat her. The deceased was carrying 8 months pregnancy. Thereafter, the accused and deceased were cordial for a period of one week and again they started quarrelling. The deceased came to the house of P.W. 2 and started staying there for a period of one month as the accused used to frequently harass and beat her. The deceased was carrying 8 months pregnancy. The deceased used to go to garment factory from the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4. The accused was demanding the deceased to join him. The house in which the accused was staying was at a distance of 100 feet from the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4. 13. On 22.10.2000 (Sunday) after completing work, P.W. 2 returned home at 2.30 p.m. At that time, the deceased was washing clothes in the house of P.W. 2. On that clay, at about 2.45 p.m., P.W. 2 left, her house to bring ration (food grains) from a shop. When P.W. 2 was going out of her house, the accused came across her. When P.W. 2 questioned the accused, he told P.W. 2 that he would talk to his wife. At that time, the accused was wearing a lungi. P.W. 2 proceeded to shop to bring the ration. After purchasing the ration, when she was returning hack to her house on the way, she met her husband P.W. 4. P.Ws. 2 and 4 together came near their house. At that time, the accused suddenly came out of their house. He was perspiring and there were few scratches on his face. The accused was wearing a colour lungi belonging to P.W. 4. When questioned by P.Ws. 2 and 4, the accused without giving any answer ran away from that place. P.Ws. 2 and 4 got scared and entered their house and found that the deceased was strangled to death. The ligature used was a lungi (MO.2) belonging to accused. P.Ws. 2 and 4 raised hue and cry and sought for help of neighbours. P.W. 2 lodged the first information at about 3.30 p.m., with Hebbagodi P.S., and set the law into motion. P.W. 2 also informed her parents about murder of her sister. The accused was not found in his house. The accused did not come to see the dead body; even he did not attend the funeral ceremony. P.W. 2 lodged the first information at about 3.30 p.m., with Hebbagodi P.S., and set the law into motion. P.W. 2 also informed her parents about murder of her sister. The accused was not found in his house. The accused did not come to see the dead body; even he did not attend the funeral ceremony. During cross-examination, evidence of P.W. 2 that deceased was staying in her house since one month prior to the date of incident and there were differences between the accused and deceased has not been controverted. The death of Prema (deceased) due to strangulation in the house of P.W. 2 during the afternoon of 22.10.2000 has also not been controverted. P.W. 2 has denied the suggestion that the lungi (ligature which had been used to strangulate the deceased) did not belong to accused, P.W. 2 has denied the suggestion that accused had visited his native place (Averahalli) on the date of incident. The contents of first, information lodged by P.W. 2 soon after the incident would lend substantial corroboration to evidence of P.W. 2. 14. P.W. 4-Gurusiddaiah is the husband of P.W. 2. P.W. 4 has deposed that on the date of incident, after completing his work, he was returning to his house. On the way, he met his wife (P.W. 2). When they came near their house, the accused suddenly came out of their house and he was perspiring. There were scratches on his face. The accused was wearing a lungi belonging to P.W. 4. The accused ran away from the place without giving any answer to P.Ws. 2 and 4. P.Ws. 2 and 4 entered their house and found that deceased had been strangled to death. The ligature used was a lungi belonging to the accused, P.W. 2 lodged the first information and set the law into motion. During cross-examination, P.W. 4 has deposed; that after the marriage, accused and the deceased were cordial for few months. He has denied the suggestion that he was not aware of the incident. On appreciation of evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4, we find that the deceased was strangled to death in the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4 around 2.30 p.m., on 22.10.2000 has been established. The prosecution has established that accused and deceased were together shortly before commission of crime. 15. In addition to the evidence of P.Ws. On appreciation of evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4, we find that the deceased was strangled to death in the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4 around 2.30 p.m., on 22.10.2000 has been established. The prosecution has established that accused and deceased were together shortly before commission of crime. 15. In addition to the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4, we have the evidence of P.W. 3. Though P.W. 3 has been declared as a hostile witness for resiling from part of his statement recorded under Section 161. Cr.P.C, the evidence of P.W. 3 that the deceased was staying in the house of P.W. 2 prior to the date of incident and the homicidal death of deceased had taken place in the house of P.W. 2 would lend corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4. 16. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to evidence of accused. The accused has deposed; that after the marriage, the deceased was staying in his native place at Averahalli. After one year, the accused brought the deceased to Bangalore. The deceased was working in Garment factory and the accused was working in Prasad Cylinder factory. They were staying in the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4 for a period of two months. Thereafter, the accused took a house belonging to P.W. 1 on lease. The accused and deceased started living separately from P.Ws. 2 and 4. There was cordiality between the accused and P.Ws. 2 and 4. The accused has not deposed that P.Ws. 2 and 4 had enmity or grudge against him. The accused has not deposed that P.Ws. 2 and 4 have given false evidence to implicate him. We find from the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4 that they had shown love and affection towards the accused and deceased. They had provided accommodation to accused and deceased. They had frequently advised the accused and deceased to lead a peaceful life. P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 were taking care of the deceased who was in advanced stage of pregnancy, it is the contention of the accused that he was falsely implicated to save the real culprit. P.W. 2 being the elder sister of deceased, P.W. 4, the husband of P.W. 2 (close relatives of deceased) would be least disposed to implicate the accused leaving aside the real culprit. P.W. 2 being the elder sister of deceased, P.W. 4, the husband of P.W. 2 (close relatives of deceased) would be least disposed to implicate the accused leaving aside the real culprit. The evidence on record discloses that murder of deceased was not for gain. The evidence does not disclose that some others had grudge against deceased to commit her murder. Therefore, we have no reasons to suspect the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4. 17. P.W. 11-Chikka Kalluraiah, the father of deceased has deposed; that accused was ill treating and harassing deceased. Therefore, he came to Bangalore and took the deceased and left her in the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4. From the evidence of P.W. 2, the prosecution has proved that soon before the incident of murder, the accused had entered the house of P.W. 2 when the deceased was staying alone. From the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4 the prosecution has proved that the accused hastily came out of the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4 where the deceased was strangled to death. 18. In a decision reported in (2006) 10 SCC 881 (in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra) the Supreme Court has held: “22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds In leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which Is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram vs. State of H.P. it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with “khukhri” and the fact that the relations of the accused with her strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal vs. State of Maharashtra the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. In Ganeshlal vs. State of Maharashtra the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission, of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. vs. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal the medical evidence disclosed that She wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that the wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room In the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of T.N. vs. Rajendran the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime.” 19. In the case on. hand, the prosecution has succeeded in leading the evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime, the accused and deceased were seen together. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime.” 19. In the case on. hand, the prosecution has succeeded in leading the evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime, the accused and deceased were seen together. In the circumstances, If the explanation offered by the accused found to be false it would lead to a conclusion that accused is the perpetrator of crime. 20. The accused got examined himself as DW.l. The accused has deposed; that at the relevant time, he was working in Prasad Cylinder factory, which is situate by the side of Huskur on Hosur road. His wife Prema (deceased) and her sister (P.W. 2) were working in a garment factory. The accused has deposed that after coming to Bangalore, the accused and deceased had stayed in the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4. Thereafter, the accused set up a separate house and they were living separately from P.Ws. 2 and 4, Even though they were living separately, there was cordiality between the accused and P.Ws. 2 and 4. The deceased was carrying 7 months pregnancy at the time of incident. 21. The accused has deposed; that on the date of incident, he left Bangalore and reached his native place at 6.00 a.m. as he needed some bricks to his house. He approached DW2-Prabhuswamy and purchased 500 bricks from him and transported the bricks in a bullock cart. On the following day (Monday) he came to his house at Bangalore and asked for Key from his neighbours. He learnt, from them that his wife Prema. was murdered and a complaint was lodged against him and the police had come in search of him. The accused came to Hehbagodi police station to enquire the matter. The police detained and arrested him. During cross-examination, the accused (DW 1) has denied the suggestion that the relationship between the accused and his wife was not cordial and there used to be frequent quarrels between them. The accused has denied the suggestion that on 22.10.2000, he had gone to the house of P.W. 2 to talk with the deceased; he picked up a quarrel with the deceased and strangled her to death. The accused has denied the suggestion that on 22.10.2000, he had gone to the house of P.W. 2 to talk with the deceased; he picked up a quarrel with the deceased and strangled her to death. The accused has not deposed that the deceased was in his house when he left Bangalore to go to his village. On the other hand, he has stated that his house was under lock and key. The accused has denied the suggestion that there was no cordiality between him and deceased and the deceased was staying in the house of P.W. 2. The accused has admitted that the deceased was carrying 7 months pregnancy. In the circumstances, the accused was bound to explain the presence of deceased either in his house or in the house of P.W. 2 when he left Bangalore to go to his village. 22. As per the evidence of investigating officer, the accused was arrested on 23.10.2000, The accused when produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate has not stated that he was detained by Hebhagodi police when had gone to Hebbagodi police station to enquire about the death of his wife. The accused was staying in Bangalore and he was working in a private factory. Jo the circumstances, it looks improbable that he had gone to his village to purchase bricks from DW.2-Prabhuswamy. 23. DW.2-Prahhuswamy has deposed; that on 22.10.2000 (Sunday), he was covering tiles to the roof of his house. The accused had come to his house. After completion of repair works of his house, some bricks had remained unused. The accused after seeing unused bricks asked DW.2 and purchased 500 bricks from DW.2 and told that he would pay the money during first of next month, DW.2 provided a bullock cart in which the accused transported 500 bricks to his village. DW.2 has deposed that the accused did not pay money. Therefore, he demanded his father and learnt about the death of wife of the accused. The father of accused paid money to DW.2. During cross-examination, DW.2 has admitted that the distance between Averahalli and Bangalore is about 1.00 kilometers and it would take about 3 hours to reach Bangalore by bus. He had not maintained any documents for having sold 500 bricks to the accused. After six months, the father of accused paid money to him. He has denied the suggestion that on. During cross-examination, DW.2 has admitted that the distance between Averahalli and Bangalore is about 1.00 kilometers and it would take about 3 hours to reach Bangalore by bus. He had not maintained any documents for having sold 500 bricks to the accused. After six months, the father of accused paid money to him. He has denied the suggestion that on. 22.12.2000 the accused had not visited his house to purchase bricks. 24. On careful consideration of evidence of DW.1 and DW.2, we find that the evidence of DW.I that he had gone to purchase bricks from DW.2 does not find corroboration from the evidence of DW.2, DW.2 was not a brick manufacturer or seller. 25. DW.2 has deposed; that he had undertaken the repairs of his house. After carrying out the repair work, certain number of bricks were left. The accused after seeing the unused bricks asked DW.2 to sell him 500 bricks. The accused has not deposed the purpose of visit to his village and purpose for which he needed bricks. Therefore, evidence of accused that he had gone to his village and later he had gone to the house of DW.2 to purchase the bricks looks improbable. 26. The accused has deposed that on the date of incident (Sunday) he reached his village at 6.00 a.m. The accused has not deposed the point of time at which he left Bangalore to go to his native place. 27. The law is well settled that the evidence adduced by accused should stand the test of. preponderance of probabilities, if not the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of accused does not reveal as to where his wife was staying when he left the house. The evidence of accused does not reveal the purpose for which he had gone to his village. The accused has not stated the reasons for leaving his wife who was in advanced stage of pregnancy to go to his village. Therefore, the accused has putforth false plea of alibi. Thus, from the evidence of father of the deceased and evidence of close relatives of the deceased, the prosecution has proved that the accused had motive to commit the murder of deceased. The relationship between the accused and deceased was strained since several months prior to the date of incident. Therefore, the accused has putforth false plea of alibi. Thus, from the evidence of father of the deceased and evidence of close relatives of the deceased, the prosecution has proved that the accused had motive to commit the murder of deceased. The relationship between the accused and deceased was strained since several months prior to the date of incident. Since two months prior to the date of incident, the accused was demanding the deceased to join him and the deceased had refused to joint the accused due to the ill treatment meted to her by the accused. From the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, it can safely be inferred that on the date of incident, at about 2.30 p.m., when the deceased was alone, the accused entered the house of P.W. 2 and demanded the deceased to join him. When, she refused, the accused strangled her to death by using the lungi worn by him as a ligature. Thereafter, the accused wore the lungi of P.W. 4 and hastily walked away from the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4. The accused was perspiring and he was in a state of panic. The accused was absconding. The accused had putforth false plea of alibi. Therefore, we hold that the evidence adduced by the prosecution would conclusively prove that the accused has committed the murder of his wife at 2.30 p.m. on 22.12.2000 in the house of P.Ws. 2 and 4. 28. The learned trial Judge without, appreciating the evidence in proper perspective and by entertaining unreasonable and untenable doubts has acquitted the accused. The learned trial Judge has not followed the principles of law relating to appreciation of evidence in a case relating to homicidal death of wife when the prosecution has established that the accused was seen with his wife soon before commission of crime. The learned trial Judge has committed an error in accepting the evidence adduced by the accused in proof of plea of alibi. Therefore, we cannot sustain, the impugned judgment. 29. In view of the above discussion, we hold the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. As the case does not fall under the category of rarest of rare cases, we deem it proper to sentence the accused for life imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 30. 29. In view of the above discussion, we hold the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. As the case does not fall under the category of rarest of rare cases, we deem it proper to sentence the accused for life imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 30. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is accepted. (ii) The impugned judgment is set aside. (iii) The accused is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. (iv) The period of detention undergone by accused during trial and is given set off as provided under Section 428 Cr.P.C. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Sri. B. Anand, learned Amicus Curiae and fix his remuneration at Rs. 5,000/- Office is directed to send back the records alongwith a copy of this judgment to the trial Court to secure accused and implement the sentence in terms of this judgment.