STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. RAMA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed by the State of Karnataka is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka acquitting the respondent-accued for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. The respondent, who is the sole accused in the case, was tried for the said offence by the Sessions Judge, Tumkur and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The High Court took the view that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused and accordingly set aside the judgment of the trial Court. Hence the present appeal by the State.

(2.) This is a case of patricide and the allegation is that the accused killed his own father. The material facts are as under : The deceased Kare Thimmaiah had two daughters namely Parwathamma, P.W. 2 and Choodamma and a son, who is the accused. Thimmakka was the wife of the deceased and is the mother of P.W. 2, Choodamma and the accused. The deceased had 2 acres of wet land and 5 to 6 acres of dry lands. According to the prosecution, 2 acres of wet land and 3 acres of dry land were ancestral property. The remaining was the self-acquired property of the deceased. The deceased gave the ancestral property to the accused along with the major portion of the family house. The deceased out of self-acquired property gave one and, a half acres of dry land to his daughter P.W. 2 and the remaining to his another daughter Choodamma under a gift deed Ex.P.2 dated 5-12-1980. On account of this gift to the daughters, the relations between the accused and the deceased became strained. It is further alleged that the deceased sold away Honge trees 3 to 4 months before the incident and retained the sale proceeds for himself. The accused asked the deceased to hand over the sale proceeds to him but the deceased refused to do so. The accused had married a girl against the wishes of the deceased. The accused was residing with his mother in a major portion of the house and the deceased was residing in a small room and a verandah. The deceased brought his daughter P.W. 2 to his house as there was nobody to look after him. P.W. 2 also brought her sisters daughter along with her. On 28-4-1981 at about 7p.m. the deceased, after taking bath was wearing dhoti in the verandah. It is alleged that at that time the accused suddenly emerged from the portion of his house and held the mouth and the chin of the deceased with his left hand and cut the neck of the deceased with a barbers razor Ex. M.O.4. The deceased as well as P.W. 2 started shouting. On hearing this, P.W. 3 Hanumantha Reddy, a neighbour and deceaseds another brother Thimma Reddy also came there. On seeing them the accused ran away. P.W. 3 and Thimma Reddy chased the accused but could not catch him. The accused is said to have thrown . the razor near a place where P.W. 4 had laid the foundation for his house. Thereafter P. Ws. 3, 4 and others engaged a bullock-cart and put the injured in that cart for the purpose of taking him to the hospital but the deceased breathed his last on the way. The dead body was brought back and kept near the varandah. Next day morning, P.W. 3 wrote a complaint Ex. P.3 to the dictation of P.W. 2 and both of them went to the Police Station and handed over the same. The Police Sub-Inspector, P.W. 13 registered the case and issued the F.I.R. He came along with the staff to the scene of occurrence, held the inquest over the dead body and recorded the statements of P.Ws. 2, 3 and others. He sent the dead body for postmortem. He seized the blood-stained razor. The Doctor, P.W. 6, who conducted the post-mortem, found an incised wound about 3-1/4" in length 2" in breadth and 1" in depth across the front of the neck above the Hyoid bone, cutting all the structures like Trachea, Larynx and Oesophogus and intevening muscles. He found another incised wound above this injury and a third incised wound in the middle of the left side of the neck. On dissection, he found the Trachea and Larynx cut and he opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries to these vital organs. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid.

(3.) The prosecution in support of its case examined P.Ws. Nos. 1 to 15. Out of them P.W. 2 figured as eye witness and P.W. 3 as a material witness who reached the scene of occurrence immediately on hearing the shouts of P.W. 2. The trial Court accepted the evidence of the material witnesses and held that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the accused. The High Court confirmed the finding that the deceased died a homicidal death and the same was not seriously disputed. The High Court also held that the relations between the accused and Thimmakka on the one hand and the relations between the deceased and his daughter P.W. on the other hand were strained. The High Court, however, pointed out certain discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and also commented on the delay in giving the F.I.R. and held that the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 was suspicious. The High Court also observed that the circumstances that the accused was absconding by itself is not incriminating and the evidence of the eye-witness becomes doubtful.