A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. - (1.)This criminal appeal arises from the judgment and final order passed by the High Court of Karnataka dated 3rd June, 2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 2259 of 2005. The High Court has set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court and instead convicted the appellant (accused) for an offence punishable under Sec. 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and sentenced him to undergo 10 (ten) years of rigorous imprisonment for killing his daughter, Shilpa.
(2.)When this appeal was taken up for hearing on 8th Sept., 2016, the Court directed issuance of notice to the appellant (accused) for enhancement of sentence. That notice has been duly served on the appellant.
(3.)The factual circumstances leading to this appeal are as under:
a. One Ravi Kumar (PW16), from the Naik community and Shilpa, from the Lingayat community, were in love. Being from different castes and apprehending opposition to their marriage by the family of Shilpa, they decided to elope and got married in 2002. They got their marriage registered before the Sub-Registrar, Hospet in 2003. Eventually, the couple returned to their village Taranagar to stay with the parents of Ravi Kumar (PW16), PW17 and PW18. When this marriage came to the knowledge of Shilpa's father, the accused, he bitterly opposed the same and reportedly berated PW16 and his family on several occasions, stating that they had brought down the honour of his family and that he would "finish" his daughter for marrying into a lower caste.

b. In the days leading up to the alleged incident, Shilpa was pregnant (around nine months). She frequently used the public toilet near to her place of residence, often accompanied by her mother-in-law (PW18). On the fateful day i.e. on 3rd Oct., 2003, at around 8 AM, Shilpa wanted to go to the toilet. At the relevant time, PW18 was preparing 'rotis' for her husband (PW17) who was getting ready to go to work. PW 18 told Shilpa that she would join her as soon as she finishes that work. After finishing her task and washing her hands, PW18 started walking towards the public toilet. When she was near the house of one Hanumanthappa, she heard a cry of Shilpa "Appa Beda Appa" (Father, don't, father) coming from the toilet. PW18 rushed towards the toilet. She saw the appellant (accused) emerging from the toilet with a blood stained sickle. Upon seeing PW18, the appellant (accused) threw the sickle into a manure dung pit nearby and ran away. Hearing the commotion, PWs1 to 4 soon arrived at the spot and along with PW18, entered the public toilet. They found Shilpa lying on the ground, facing upwards, in a pool of blood with a cut to her neck. PW18 then lodged a complaint with PSI (PW24), who then registered the FIR. The appellant absconded after the incident and was eventually arrested 20 (twenty) days later. After the investigation was complete, the appellant was charge sheeted for killing his daughter Shilpa and committed to trial before the Sessions Court.

c. During the trial, prosecution led evidence of 25 (twenty five) witnesses including the experts. The eye witnesses who had arrived at the spot of the incident turned hostile with the exception of PW18, whose testimony has been found to be truthful and reliable by the High Court.

d. The Sessions Court, vide judgment dated 28th Feb., 2005, acquitted the accused inter alia on the ground that mere intent on the part of the accused to commit the crime was not sufficient to record a finding of guilt. The Sessions Court discarded the evidence of PW18. It held that the evidence of PW 18 was replete with improvements on her previous statement and was unreliable. Further, the circumstantial evidence was not enough to convict the accused.

e. In appeal by the State, the High Court accepted the prosecution's case that the accused was a frustrated father because of his daughter having married to Ravi Kumar (PW16) who belonged to lower caste and was the motive to commit the crime. Further, even if there was a little exaggeration of the events by PW18 during her evidence, the same could be ignored and that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the accused. The High Court also relied on the post mortem report and serology report which inter alia stated that blood stains on the sickle matched with those on the clothes of the deceased. The High Court recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant but went on to convict the appellant for offence under Sec. 304 Part I of Penal Code and sentenced him to 10 years of imprisonment. This order of conviction and sentence has been challenged by the appellant.