LAWS(SC)-2003-4-154

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. PAPANNA URUF BABAVARAJ SHIVAPPA

Decided On April 02, 2003
STATE OF KARNATAKA Appellant
V/S
Papanna Uruf Babavaraj Shivappa Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court. The respondent was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and life imprisonment was imposed on him by judgment and order of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased, Suresh Ghodke, a cobbler was done to death by the respondent. The accused for some time had worked under the deceased. There were some differences between the deceased and one Shankar. The deceased tried to assault Shankar on which the accused intervened, whereupon the accused was slapped by the deceased. On this account the accused stopped working under the deceased and bore a grudge against the deceased and wanted to take revenge. On 5-8-1984, at about 9.00 p.m., after taking meals, the deceased went out to purchase pan from the shop of PW 10. When the deceased was returning after chewing pan and was still at some distance from his house, the respondent-accused, near a neem tree, suddenly attacked the deceased and assaulted him with a rambigi (an instrument used by a cobbler for cutting leather). The deceased was given 3-4 blows by the accused and he ran away thereafter. The deceased sustained injuries, went to the close-by house of one of his relatives (PW 7) and fell down on the bed in the said house. The incident was witnessed by PW 1 wife of the deceased, PW 6 sister of the deceased and PW 7. The FIR was recorded at 10.30 p.m. The accused was named in the FIR as having assaulted the deceased.

(3.) The trial court, on appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. The judgment and order of the trial court has been set aside by the High Court and the accused acquitted by the impugned judgment, for, in the view of the High Court there is discrepancy in the time and place of occurrence, delay in forwarding of FIR to the Magistrate and doubt about the source of light so as to identify the accused.