STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. PANCHAKSHARI GURUPADAYYA HIRAMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The deceased-Shankaraiah Hiremath, who was working as DSP, had succumbed to the incised injuries inflicted on him by a cutting weapon on the night of 25-4-1993 in his native village of Ugarkhurd, Belgaum District. The respondent herein who is the brother's son of the deceased was charged under S. 302, I.P.C. for the murder of Shankaraiah. The trial Court convicted the accused-respondent mainly on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 3 who, according to the prosecution, was in the company of the deceased while taking walk on the fateful night. On appeal filed by the accused, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused. That is why the State of Karnataka has filed the present appeal.

(2.) Another aspect which according to the High Court casts a doubt on the prosecution case is the alleged existence of two complaints, one recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 18) and the other a written complaint handed over by P.W. 1 to P.W. 18. On this aspect the High Court referred to the evidence of P.W. 4 who accompanied P.W. 1 to the police station to the effect that P.W. 1 narrated the incident to the PSI who started recording the same for about 15 minutes, whereas according to P.W. 18, he only received a written complaint (Ex. P1) from P.W. 1. The said complaint which runs into six pages was written and signed by P.W. 1 himself as seen from his deposition. On that basis, the FIR was recorded. The Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 18 clarified that P.W. 1 did not lodge any oral complaint but he gave a written complaint and the same was written in the police station. He further stated that he was not present in the police station when the complaint was being written but P.W. 1 told him that it was written in the police station. True, there is variation in the version given by P.W. 4 and P.W. 18 to some extent P.W. 4 deposed that he saw P.W. 18 recording the facts that were being stated by P.W. 1 for about 15 minutes and then he came out of the police station. He further deposed that P.W. 1 was in the police station till 4 a.m., that is to say for nearly two hours. However, from the deposition of P.W. 4, it does not follow nor can it be reasonably inferred that in the first instance, P.W. 1 gave a different version of the incident to the police officer. It may be that in the first instance P.W. 1 would have narrated the details of incident to P.W. 18 and he would have started noting the same for some time but that does not necessarily mean that there were two complaints. P.W. 4 was not in the company of P.W. 1 throughout. But, he was there only for a few minutes. It is not within his knowledge as to what happened thereafter. The fact remains and it is beyond dispute that the report was drafted by P.W. 1 himself and handed over to the PSI (P.W. 18) and there was sufficient time for him to write the report in the police station. It is not possible to infer from the deposition of P.W. 4 that the first report was withheld and another report with a different version was made out.

(3.) Another reason given by the High Court is that the discovery of M.O. 3-sickle on the basis of the statement said to have been made by the accused under S. 27 of the Evidence Act, cannot be relied upon for the reason that mere marking of the statement without mentioning the words stated by the accused will not satisfy the requirement of Section 27. Even the trial Court was not prepared to believe that the accused made a statement that he would point out the sickle and then led the witnesses to the place where it was allegedly hidden. The non-discovery of the weapon - sickle, in our view, does not go to discredit the evidence of P.W. 3.