Upholds sentence of garment worker for wife’s murderBengaluru: Non-examination of the medical officer, by itself, is not fatal to the prosecution case, nor is the mere delay in obtaining the forensic science laboratory (FSL) report. These circumstances are not sufficient to discredit the prosecution case, particularly when the other oral and documentary evidence on record sufficiently corroborates the prosecution version and establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.A division bench of the high court made this observation while upholding the conviction and sentence imposed upon a garment factory worker from Bengaluru for murdering his wife in 2021.Mutturaj, who hails from Kollegal in Chamarajanagar district, was working as a helper in a garment factory. His wife, Malarani, also worked there. The couple were staying at a rented house at Kachanayakanahalli village, Jigani hobli, Anekal taluk.The prosecution said Mutturaj suspected the fidelity of his wife and used to quarrel with her. On the night of Nov 28, 2021, he killed Malarani by assaulting her on the neck nine times using a knife. Police filed the chargesheet and on Aug 3, 2023, the trial court held him guilty of murder and imposed a life sentence along with Rs 50,000 as fine.Challenging the same, Mutturaj claimed the two witnesses relied on by the trial court are relatives of the deceased and are interested witnesses.He argued that there was a delay in forensic examination and forwarding of the FSL report, and the prosecution hadn’t produced any documentary evidence regarding hospitalisation of the deceased.However, a division bench of Justices Mohammad Nawaz and B Pramod pointed out that the motive attributed to the accused stood established through the evidence of witnesses Leela, her daughter Megha and another relative.The testimonies of Leela and Megha revealed that Mutturaj had been harassing Malarani and had assaulted her on the day of the incident. Both witnesses deposed that frequent disputes arose between the couple on account of Mutturaj’s suspicion regarding his wife’s fidelity. Leela specifically testified that, during the incident, she intervened in the quarrel between the couple, attempted to pacify them and advised Mutturaj against assaulting his wife. The division bench made these observations while dismissing the appeal filed by Mutturaj.
