UDAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parthasarthi (P.W. 1) along with his wife Gangabai (P.W. 2) and two children, namely, Suresh and Manjunath (P.W. 3) came to the house of mother of P. W. 2 at B.M.L. Nagar K.G.F. on 19-4-1988 to attend the Seemantha ceremony of the wife of the brother-in-law of Parthasarthi to be held on 20-4-1988. The parents of Gangabai (P.W. 2) reside at B.E.M.L. (B.M.L.) Nagar K. G. F. The appellant-accused is the real brother of Gangabai (P.W. 2). Parthasarthi (P.W. 1) was sleeping in one of the rooms in that house. Gangabai (P.W. 2) between 4 and 5.00 P. M. came to the room where Parthasarthi (P.W. 1) was sleeping and told him that their son Suresh had been killed. On hearing this news, Parthasarthi (P.W. 1) and Gangabai (P.W. 2) rushed to the said room where dead body of Suresh with head severed was lying on the floor and the appellant was standing there with a kathi in his hand. Parthasarthi (P.W. 1) then immediately rushed to the police station and lodged a complaint against the appellant. The police reached the place of occurrence immediately and carried out the necessary investigation.

(2.) The appellant was put up for trial for committing the murder of Suresh aged about 4 years, an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. He pleaded innocence and stated that he did not know who committed the murder of Suresh. His further plea was that the dead body was found in the bath room and not in the room. He also denied that he was standing near the dead body in the room with kathi. The substance of his defence was that he is innocent and he be acquitted.

(3.) At the outset, it be stated that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence in question. The prosecution case entirely rested on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances sought to be proved upon by the prosecution were: