Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 104 (KAR)

Vijaykumar Samuel Jantli v. State of Karnataka

2017-01-12

K.SOMASHEKAR, RAVI MALIMATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : K. Somashekar, J. It is the case of the prosecution that on 7.9.2010 in between 07:45 a.m. and 08:00 a.m., the accused committed murder of his wife Smt. Jospin in plot bearing No. 32 situated in Ambika Graha Nirman Sahakar Sangh Niyamit, Unkal-Hubli adjacent to Hubli-Maradagi road with means of stabbing her with a knife and causing multiple injuries by suspecting her fidelity to him while she was living in her mother's house at Tajnagar-Ektanagar of Unkal, Hubli since a year. The accused who had come to the house of his mother-in-law during the night of 6.9.2010 and on the next day morning at about 07:30 a.m. on 7.9.2010 when the deceased had left her mother's house for going to attend the work at Dr. M.M. Joshi Eye Hospital, Hubli, where she was working, the accused by following her, assaulted her with knife and committed her murder by causing multiple injuries at the scene of crime and has done her to death. On the filing of the complaint by the complainant, a case came to be registered by the Police for the alleged offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The case had been taken up by the Investigation Officer and laid the charge-sheet against the accused by consisting the statement of witnesses as well as the mahazar which was conducted by him in the presence of the panch witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused does not pleaded guilty, but claims to be tried, accordingly plea of the accused have been recorded separately. 2. In order to prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution in all examined P.Ws.1 to 28, got marked Exs.P-1 to P-40 and P-40(a), apart from got marked M.Os.1 to 16. Subsequently, the learned Sessions Judge heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Prosecutor for the State. The learned Sessions Judge held conviction against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The impugned judgment of conviction has been questioned by preferring this appeal by the appellant/accused. 3. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The impugned judgment of conviction has been questioned by preferring this appeal by the appellant/accused. 3. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant during the course of his arguments has been contended that the prosecution in order to prove the facts of the deceased Smt. Joshpin, who died a homicidal death has placed ample material which includes ocular evidence as well as the documentary evidence. P.W.23 is the Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body and issued post-mortem report at Ex.P-30 which indicates in all 40 injuries inflicted over the person of the deceased. Apart from that, P.W.23 also examined the knife/M.O.4 alleged to have used by the accused for the commission of offence and issued opinion report, as per Ex.P-31. 4. P.W.7 who being eye-witness to the incident prosecution had seen the incident and also identified the accused, as he being the assailant, he had seen the accused stabbing the deceased with means of a knife/M.O.4. As the accused caused injuries over the person, as indicated at Ex.P-30/post-mortem report issued by PW.23/Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body. The accused alleged to have stabbed the deceased with means of a knife/M.O.4 on her abdomen, on her right hand at the open space near Ambika Nagar while he was proceeding with C.W. 14/Rahul Patil towards his house. As that P.W.7 who being the prime witness for the prosecution, saw the accused who fled away from the scene of crime, after stabbing the deceased who had fell down on the ground with inflicting bleeding injuries. Thereafter, he immediately went to his friend's house namely Vivek along with Rahul Patil and informed about the incident of assault by her husband i.e., the accused. This witness who has been subjected to cross-examination by the defence counsel, wherein he has specifically stated that he knows Vivek, namely the brother of the deceased since two years and also knows the accused who is her husband. In the cross-examination, he has specifically stated that though admitted the suggestion that since M.O.4/knife which was shown to him during the course of examination-in-chief by saying that the knife used in commission of offence was like that so he admitted as true. In the cross-examination, he has specifically stated that though admitted the suggestion that since M.O.4/knife which was shown to him during the course of examination-in-chief by saying that the knife used in commission of offence was like that so he admitted as true. But the said admission itself shows that there is a doubt on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused who alleged to have stabbed over the person of the deceased with means of M.O.4/knife and caused multiple injuries as indicated at Ex.P-30/post-mortem report issued by P.W.23 and so also the opinion report, as per Ex.P-31 which was subjected to the examination of knife/M.O.4 alleged to have used by the accused. 5. As closely to scrutinize the evidence of P.W.7 who being the prime witness for the prosecution, it appears to be inconsistent and also discrepancy on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused with beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused who alleged to stab over the person of the deceased with means of knife/M.O.4. But in the instant case, P.W.7 has specifically identified the victim as the elder sister of his friend Vivek and the accused is none other than the husband of the deceased. For having witnessed the accused stabbing her with a knife on her stomach and on right hand which were to be indicated as at Ex.P-30/post-mortem report. But having gone through the entire evidence of the P.W.7, who being the prime witness for the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused, it appears to be discrepancy and also inconsistency to each other. Insofar as the factum of Ex.P-1/spot panchanama conducted by the Investigating Officer and also it bears the signature of P.W.1. Ex.P-2 is the seizure panchanama of M.O.4, wherein P.W.2 subscribes his signature in the presence of P.W.27. Ex.P-3 is the case diary which bears the signature of P.W.3 in the presence of P.W.27. Ex.P-4 is the First Information Report, as where the crime came to be registered in Crime No. 78 of 2010 of Vidyanagar Police Station, Hubli for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Ex.P-3 is the case diary which bears the signature of P.W.3 in the presence of P.W.27. Ex.P-4 is the First Information Report, as where the crime came to be registered in Crime No. 78 of 2010 of Vidyanagar Police Station, Hubli for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the evidence of the P.W.7 for the prosecution which is contrary to the fulcrum of facts to the spot mahazar and also seizure mahazar for having seized the knife/M.O.4 which alleged to have used by the accused for the commission of offence and also the factum of Ex.P-4/the First Information Report in Crime No. 78 of 2010 has been recorded, it is based upon the complaint/Ex.P-5. Ex.P-7 is the cloth seizure panchanama, it bears the signature of P.W. 1. As this panchanama was conducted by P.W.27/Investigating Officer. Ex.P-8 is the seizure panchanama of blood-stained articles which bears the signatures of PWs.8 and 20, which was conducted by P.W.27/Investigation Officer. It is relevant to state that P.Ws.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, as they were given statement before the Investigation Officer during the course of investigation, but their portion of the statements got marked as Exs.P-9 to P-29 respectively Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses which runs contrary to the evidence of P.W.7 who being the prime witness for the prosecution and so also the vital evidence to prove the guilt against the accused. P.W.23 being the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued post-mortem report, as per Ex.P-30 and also issued opinion report, as per Ex.P-31 relating to the examination of the weapon i.e., knife/M.O.4 which was used by the accused for the commission of offence. Though the prosecution has placed much of evidence to prove the guilt against the accused that the accused alleged to have committed the murder of his wife by inflicting injuries as indicated at Ex.P-30/post-mortem report, but the prosecution has not been placed the consistent, corroborative, cogent and reliable evidence to prove the guilt against the accused that he committed the murder of his wife by suspecting her fidelity, as she was residing in her mother's house since a year. The learned Sessions Judge who has not properly analysed the evidence put-forth by the prosecution, but held conviction against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, by misdirecting the evidence of the prosecution as well as misread the evidence placed by the prosecution. Therefore, in this appeal, it requires to be re-appreciated the evidence on record placed by the prosecution and reverse the conviction of judgment by allowing this appeal and acquit the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. On controvert to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal, as the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State has contended vehemently that P.W.23/Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued postmortem report, as per Ex.P-30 and the said injuries are as follows: "External injuries: 1. Sickle shaped incised wound measuring 4 x 1 cm x skin deep, present 2 cms. below left eye. 2. Stab injury present 2 cm behind left angle of jaw of size 2 x 0.5 x 3 cm, muscle deep. Both angles sharp, upper border is undermined and lower border beveled. 3. Incised wound 3 x 1 cm x muscle deep present over right side of neck, adjacent 1 cm to the right of thyroid comer with inner end tailing. 4. Incised wound 5 x 1 cm x muscle deep present over outer aspect of right arm, placed 9 cms. below top of right shoulder joint. 5. Vertically placed incised wound 6 x 2 cm x muscle deep present over inner of right elbow. 6. Vertically placed incised wound 4 x 2 cm x muscle deep with tailing of lower end present 1 cm above injury No. 5. 7. Vertically placed incised wound 4 x 1 cm x skin deep present 0.5 cm behind injury Nos. 5 and 6. 8. Vertically placed incised wound 2.5 x 1 cm x skin deep with tailing of lower end present 0.5 cm. below injury No. 7. 9. Incised wound 4 x 1.5 cm x skin deep present vertically 0.5 cm. above injury No. 7. 10. Incised wounds two in numbers vertically placed side by side each measuring 3 x 0.5 cm x skin deep present just above injury No. 9. 11. below injury No. 7. 9. Incised wound 4 x 1.5 cm x skin deep present vertically 0.5 cm. above injury No. 7. 10. Incised wounds two in numbers vertically placed side by side each measuring 3 x 0.5 cm x skin deep present just above injury No. 9. 11. Incised wound 1.5 x 0.5 cm x skin deep present just above injury No. 10. 12. Incised wound 4 x 2 cm x skin deep present 2 cm above injury No. 6. 13. Incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm skin deep present 2 cm above injury No. 6. 14. Incised wound 8 x 2 x 1 cm present over front of right fore arm starting from wrist joint and passing vertically upwards. 15. Incised wound 3 x 1 cm skin deep present over outer border of left fore arm placed 10 cm below elbow joint. 16. Incised wound 3 x 0.5 cm x skin deep present over back of left elbow. 17. Incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm x skin deep present over inner aspect of left forearm placed 8 cm below elbow joint. 18. Incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm x skin deep present 1 cm infront of right arm pit. 19. Incised wound 3 x 1 cm x skin deep present 2 cm below injury No. 18. 20. Stab wound 3 x 2 x 3 cm muscle deep present 3 cm below and 2 cm inside of injury No. 19. Both angles are sharp. 21. Obliquely placed incised wound 3 x 1 cm x skin deep present 1 cm below and 2 cms outwards of injury No. 20. 22. Stab wound 5 x 2 cm x chest cavity deep placed obliquely to the right of mid sternal area 2 cm to right of midline. Both angles sharp. 23. Incised wound 1 x 0.5 cm x skin deep present 2 cm above right nipple, horizontal. 24. Incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm x skin deep present 3 cm to the right of left nipple. Placed obliquely with lower end tailing. 25. Incised wound 1.5 x 0.5 cm x skin deep, obliquely placed 3 cm to right of injury No. 24. 26. Incised wound 1.5 x 0.5 x skin deep, obliquely placed 2 cm above lower end breast bone 1 cm left of mid line. 27. Placed obliquely with lower end tailing. 25. Incised wound 1.5 x 0.5 cm x skin deep, obliquely placed 3 cm to right of injury No. 24. 26. Incised wound 1.5 x 0.5 x skin deep, obliquely placed 2 cm above lower end breast bone 1 cm left of mid line. 27. Stab wound 3 x 1 cm x chest cavity deep placed horizontally 2 cm right and 2 cm above the level of lower end of breast bone and both angles are sharp. 28. Incise wound 2 x 1 cm x skin deep, obliquely placed 5 cm to the right of mid line at the level of lower end of breast bone. 29. Horizontally placed stab wound measuring 3 x 1 cm x chest cavity, present over front of right side of chest, situated 5 cm below right nipple and 11 cm right of midline, both angles are sharp, lower edge is beveled and upper edge is undermined. 30. Stab wound 3 x 2 cm x muscle deep present over front of right thigh, placed obliquely 12 cm above right knee cap, outer edge beveled and inner edge is undermined. The track of the wound is directed upwards, backwards and inwards for a depth of 6 cms. 31. Horizontally placed incised wound 3 x 1 cm x skin deep present 10 cm below elbow over outer border or right forearm. 32. Incised wound 8 x 2 cm x muscle deep, semilunar in shape present 1 cm below injury No. 31. 33. Incised wound 9 x 3 cm x muscle deep, semilunar present over back of right forearm situated 1 cm above right wrist. 34. Stab wound 5 x 2 cm x muscle deep present over back of right shoulder, 4 cm below top of shoulder, upper edge beveled, lower edge undermined, both angels are sharp. The track of the wound directed forwards, downwards and inwards for a depth of 5 cm. 35. Obliquely placed stab wound measuring 3 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep present over back of right side of chest situated 25 cms below top of shoulder and 10 cm right of midline and both angles are sharp. 36. Incised wound 3 x 1 x 1 cm obliquely placed over back of left side of chest inner to inner border of middle of left shoulder bone (scapula). 37. 36. Incised wound 3 x 1 x 1 cm obliquely placed over back of left side of chest inner to inner border of middle of left shoulder bone (scapula). 37. Incised wound 2.5 x 0.5 cm x skin deep placed vertically 2 cm below injury No. 36. 38. Incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm x skin deep present at lower angle of left shoulder bone (scapula). 39. Horizontally placed stab wound 3.5 x 1 cm x chest cavity deep situated 5 cm below injury No. 38, both angles are sharp. 40. Incised wound 6 x 2 cm x muscle deep placed vertically 10 cm above back of left ankle. 7. Apart from that, P.W.23 also examined M.O.4/iron knife which alleged to have been used by the accused and issued the opinion report, as per Ex.P-31 which relates to the weapon used for commission of the offence. P.W.23 has stated in his evidence that he had examined the dead body of the deceased on 07.09.2010 in between 02:00 p.m. and 04:00 p.m. On receipt of the dead body along with the requisition of the I.O. and held post-mortem over the dead body and issued post-mortem report indicating injuries as inflicted over the person of the deceased who is none other than the wife of the accused. It is further contended that the track of the stab wounds are filled with blood and all the incised and stab wounds are clean cut and all the injuries were ante-mortem and fresh in nature. P.W.23 has opined that the cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage, as a result of injuries sustained. As already been contended that Ex.P-30 is the postmortem report issued by P.W.23 and also the opinion report issued by him, as per Ex.P-31, as the weapon which has been examined by him on 19.11.2010, M.O.4 is the iron knife which was used by the accused at the time of committing the alleged offence by stabbing over the person of the deceased, the opinion report at Ex.P31, it is possible to sustain such type of stab and incised wounds. 8. The prosecution in all examined several witnesses. However, it is clear through the evidence of P.W.23 that which is corroborated with the ocular evidence of other witnesses namely P.Ws. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 to 14, 21, 22, 27. 8. The prosecution in all examined several witnesses. However, it is clear through the evidence of P.W.23 that which is corroborated with the ocular evidence of other witnesses namely P.Ws. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 to 14, 21, 22, 27. Besides that the document at Ex.P-3 which is the inquest mahazar and the document at Ex.P-1 which is the spot mahazar are also material as a corroborative evidence in proving the death of the deceased, who is none other than the wife of the accused, as a result of multiple injuries sustained by the deceased in the hands of her husband with means of a knife/M.O.4 which alleged to have used by the accused. The materials on record which placed by the prosecution which alleged to have proved the case against the accused that there is no dispute that the deceased is none other than the wife of the accused and also the accused is the cause for the death of the deceased by inflicting injuries over the person and the death is homicidal death. There was no serious challenge that the death is not a homicidal death, but having gone through the entire evidence of the prosecution placed to prove the guilt against the accused that the evidence of P.W.23 being the Doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body and issued post-mortem report, as per Ex.P-30 by indicating the multiple injuries which were to be found over the person of the deceased itself is proved that the injuries so found over the dead body of the deceased resulting in death were by an act of the accused and that the accused caused such injuries with intention to done her death. The motive behind the committing the alleged offences by the accused is that was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased. With all preparation on purchasing a knife/M.O.4, he had come to his mother-in-law's house on the previous night where his wife was residing since a year. As she was staying there and was doing job as Nurse at Dr. M.M. Joshi Eye Hospital, Hubli, after taking training as a nurse course in that regard. With all preparation on purchasing a knife/M.O.4, he had come to his mother-in-law's house on the previous night where his wife was residing since a year. As she was staying there and was doing job as Nurse at Dr. M.M. Joshi Eye Hospital, Hubli, after taking training as a nurse course in that regard. The accused who picked up a quarrel with her during the said night and without taking food who had slept in the night in a separate room and further on the next day morning when the deceased woke up and was getting prepared for going to her work, the accused again picked up quarrel with her and when she left the house for her work, he followed her and at the open site bearing plot No. 32 situated in Ambika Graha Nirman Sahakar Sangh Niyamit, Unkal-Hubli, attacked her and stabbed her with a knife/M.O.4 on various parts of her body causing multiple injuries of about in all 1 to 40 injuries which indicates at Ex.P-30/post-mortem report and killed her brutally. 9. The prosecution examined several witnesses, as P.W.7 being the eye-witness for the prosecution who has witnessed the incident, as wherein the accused assaulted the deceased by stabbing over her with a knife/M.O.4 by inflicting multiple injuries, as indicated at Ex.P-30/post-mortem report. As these injuries which were to be correspondence with M.O.4/knife, as there was an opinion report issued by P.W.23/Doctor at Ex.P-31. 10. The other witness for the prosecution examined as P.W.21 has not been supported the prosecution case, but this has not come in the way of the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused, who is none other than the husband of the deceased, who stabbed over her person mercilessly with means of a knife/M.O.4 and committed the murder. However, P.W.21/Vivek has not disputed the fact, as he being the friend of the elder sister of the deceased. So also bringing of Vivek to the scene of crime, after seeing the dead body of the deceased which was lying at the spot. The accused though subjected to P.W.21 to cross-examination and got elucidated in the cross-examination that on 7.9.2010 he had not met Raju Daniel namely P.W.7 by itself, it cannot be said to be sufficient to disbelieve the version of P.W.7 who being the prime witness for the prosecution. The accused though subjected to P.W.21 to cross-examination and got elucidated in the cross-examination that on 7.9.2010 he had not met Raju Daniel namely P.W.7 by itself, it cannot be said to be sufficient to disbelieve the version of P.W.7 who being the prime witness for the prosecution. This witness has been analysed by the prosecution coupled with the evidence relating to Exs.P-1/spot panchanama of P.W.1 conducted by P.W.27. Ex.P-2 is the seizure panchanama of knife/M.O.4 which was conducted by P.W.27 in the presence of P. W.2. Ex.P-5 is the complaint given by P.W.5 which bears the signature of P.W.6. Ex.P-7 is the cloth seizure cloth panchanama which bears the signature of P. W. 1 which was conducted by P.W.27. Ex.P-8 is the seizure nanchanaina of blood stained articles which conducted by P.W.27 which bears the signature of P.Ws.8 and 20. Ex.P-30 is the post-mortem report which issued by P.W.23 and Ex.P-31 is the opinion report which was also issued by P.W.23, relating to the examination of the knife/M.O.4 alleged to have used by the accused for the commission of offence by stabbing over the person of the deceased mercilessly. As these evidence of the prosecution which were analysed by the learned Sessions Judge and has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused with beyond all reasonable doubt by putting forth the positive, corroborative, cogent and acceptable evidence to probabilize that the accused who had committed the murder of the deceased who is none other than his wife by inflicting injuries as indicated at Ex.P- 30/post-mortem report. Therefore, it does not hold any substances in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal that calls for interference of the impugned judgment of conviction held against the accused by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that as to confirm the impugned judgment by dismissing the appeal and defend the same. 11. Therefore, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that as to confirm the impugned judgment by dismissing the appeal and defend the same. 11. Having regard these strenuous contentions which is taken by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal and so also as the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State, keeping in view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 28 and so also Exs.P-1 to P-40 and P-40(a) and M.Os.1 to 16 are concerned, it is relevant to state that P.W.7 who being the eyewitness for the prosecution has witnessed the incident, as he was an assailant and had seen the accused stabbing over the person of the deceased mercilessly with means of a knife/M.O.4 at the open space near Ambika Nagar while he was with C.W. 13/Rahul Patil and saw that the accused who fled away from the scene of crime, after mercilessly stabbing over the person of the deceased, who fell on the ground with bleeding injuries. As that P.W.7 who immediately went to his friend's house Vivek along with Rahul Patil and informed about the incident of assault on his sister by her husband being the accused and on return he saw that the injured who lying dead at the scene of crime. P.W.7 who had been subjected to cross-examination by the defence counsel, but nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the version of the prosecution as where the accused who committed the murder of the deceased mercilessly over person of the deceased with means of a knife/M.O.4 and the same had been seen in the evidence of P.W.7 coupled with the evidence of P.W.23 who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued the post-mortem re-port/Ex.P-30 and so also issued opinion re-port/Ex.P-31 relating to the examination of the knife/M.O.4 which alleged to have used by the accused for the commission of offence. It is relevant to state in this case that P.W.7 who being the prime witness for the prosecution has identified the assailant who is none other than the accused being the husband of the deceased and mode of doing of the act and person being the victim. It is relevant to state in this case that P.W.7 who being the prime witness for the prosecution has identified the assailant who is none other than the accused being the husband of the deceased and mode of doing of the act and person being the victim. In the instant case, P.W.7 who being the prime witness identified the victim who being the elder sister of his friend Vivek and caused her death by her husband mercilessly assaulting, as stabbing over her person with means of a knife/M.O.4 by choosing the vital parts i.e., on her stomach, right hand and injuries inflicted, as mentioned in the post-mortem report and fled away from the scene of crime. As a result of that multiple injuries inflicted by the accused, she was lying dead at the scene of crime. 12. P.W.7 who being the prime witness for the prosecution and also there is a direct evidence which is unshattered shall has to be believe as nothing has been shown to the Court for disbelieving the version of P.W.7. The evidence of P.W.7 which corroborated with the evidence of P.W.23 who being the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued post-mortem report, as per Ex.P-30. Whereas at a cursory glance of the evidence of P.W.21, it cannot come in the way for the prosecution to disbelieve the versions of the P.W.7, as he being the ocular witness of the prosecution who has witnessed the incident, as where the accused who stabbed over the person of the deceased mercilessly with means of a knife/M.O.4. P.W.5 is the complainant and she is the younger sister of the deceased. On 06.09.2010 the accused who had come to the house of the complainant, where his wife was staying since a year on attending a private job at Dr. M.M. Joshi Eye Hospital as a nurse. When his wife being the deceased who had offered him food in the night that the accused refused to take it and slept in a separate room. M.M. Joshi Eye Hospital as a nurse. When his wife being the deceased who had offered him food in the night that the accused refused to take it and slept in a separate room. But on the next day morning, when the deceased woke up and was getting ready to attend her work in the Hospital, the accused also woke up and picked up a quarrel with his wife and after picking up quarrel, again he went and slept in the room and when she left the house at about 07:30 a.m. for attending the work at Dr. M.M. Joshi Eye Hospital, the accused also woke up immediately and followed her and at about 08:00 a.m. while she was in the house of the friends of her son Vivek by name Raju and Rahul came to her house and informed her son Vivek that his elder sister is murdered at Shrinagar cross. Immediately they all went to the scene of crime and saw that the Police was present and the deceased was lying dead and also saw that the blood was fallen here and there. Thereafter, the dead body was taken to the mortuary at KIMS Hospital. Therefore, they all went there and saw the dead body of the deceased Joshpin and found various injuries all over the body and later came to know that the accused had caused her to death by means of stabbing with a knife/M.O.4. The evidence of P.Ws.5, 6 and 16 are corroborated with the evidence of P.W.7 coupled with the evidence of P.W.23 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem report Ex.P-30 and so also issued opinion report as per Ex.P-31 relating to the examination of the weapon i.e., the knife/M.O.4 which was used by the accused for the commission of offence. The evidence of P.W.27 who being an I.O., as the prosecution which has putforth the evidence to prove the guilt against the accused examined P.Ws.5, to 7 and 16 as the accused who was assailant and also caused injuries over the person of the deceased as none else. 13. P.Ws.9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 22 though cited as eye-witnesses to the incident by the prosecution, but they have turned hostile by resiling to their earlier statement which were to be recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. 13. P.Ws.9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 22 though cited as eye-witnesses to the incident by the prosecution, but they have turned hostile by resiling to their earlier statement which were to be recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. But their evidence has not come in the way for prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused, as where the accused who is none other than the husband of the deceased who stabbed over her person with means of a knife/M.O.4 and caused her death and also inflicted injuries mercilessly. 14. It is evident from the evidence of PWs. 1 and 28 that under Ex.P-7 M.Os.8 to 10 which were seized from the person of the accused namely jerkin, jeans pant, T-shirt which were blood stained on 9.9.2010 in the Police Station. P.W.28 apprehended the accused at Harihar Railway Station and the Police Constable who were deputed by the Police Inspector for search and arrest of the accused on receipt of credible information about the presence of the accused at the said Railway Station, they went there and apprehended him with the help of photograph which they had carried with them. PW. 1 being the panch witness to the mahazar at Ex.P-1 relating to the place of incident and Ex.P-7 is the mahazar relating to the seizure of the bloodstained clothes found on the accused person has specifically identified the accused before the Court and spoken to the contents of mahazars at Ex.P- 7 relating to seizure of M.Os.8 to 10. So far as the evidence of PW.1, it is relevant to state that M.Os.8 to 10 jerkin, jeans pant and T-shirt seized under the mahazar at Ex.P-7 which found on the person of the accused. P.W.27 being an I.O. who has specifically stated in his evidence that accused was arrested by C.W.28 and PC. No. 2810 and PC No. 2344 at Harihar Railway Station on 09.09.2010, as the accused was produced before the I.O. and recorded the voluntary statement as per Ex.P-37 and based upon the voluntary statement, he conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P-7 and also seized M.Os.8 to 10. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 27 do constitute sufficient and substantial in proof of the recovery of articles at M.Os.8 to 10 from the accused under Ex.P-7. 15. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 27 do constitute sufficient and substantial in proof of the recovery of articles at M.Os.8 to 10 from the accused under Ex.P-7. 15. Besides another circumstantial Evidence which connects the accused with the alleged incident is seizure of M.O.4/knife which alleged to have used by the accused for the commission of the offence of murder of the deceased who is none other than the wife of the accused by inflicting multiple injuries over her person as indicate at Ex.P-30/post-mortem report. 16. Having gone through the entire evidence of the prosecution which has placed by the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused, as we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has read the evidence in a proper perspective and rightly come to the conclusion that the accused who is none other than the husband of the deceased caused inflicting injuries over the person of the deceased and committed murder brutally, as he suspected her fidelity. Therefore, in this appeal, it does not call for interference of the impugned judgment of conviction held against the accused, as there are no good grounds to be urged by the learned counsel for the appellant to interfere with the impugned judgment. 17. We are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion by analysing the evidence of the prosecution as placed by proving the guilt against the accused with cogent, corroborative, consistent and probabilize that the accused who committed the murder of the deceased by mercilessly stabbed over the person of the deceased and caused injuries 1 to 40, as indicated at Ex.P-30/post-mortem report. Therefore, in this appeal, it does not call for interference as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent and there are no justifiable grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant which calls for interference. 18. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons we proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. The appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby dismissed and confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2011 dated 24.07.2012.