STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. ANGADI SIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting aspect of the law relating to the acceptability of expert evidence has fallen for determination in this criminal appeal. The short issue is as to whether, in the face of opinion evidence tendered by a doctor which has not been challenged in cross-examination, it would be open to the court to disregard this evidence if the record justifies such a procedure. For purposes of elaborating the circumstances under which this issue has arisen we briefly recount the facts.

(2.) ON 24-1-1991 at about 12. 30 in the afternoon the accused siddappa is alleged to have assaulted P. W. 1-sharanappa with a pickaxe which is really a wood cutting implement used by the villagers for cutting small branches etc. According to the prosecution, the background to the incident was that about three months earlier, sharanappa is alleged to have let loose his bullocks in the land of the accused who is his relation and this caused some damage, as a result of which there was an altercation which was still simmering. The accused inflicted one injury on the head and another on the thigh. There is no dispute about the fact that the injury on the thigh was a superficial one. Even the injury on the head which caused some bleeding as the tissue on the skull was cut open, was bandaged with cloth and it was only after quite some time that the injured went to the hospital for treatment. In the wound certificate that has been issued, the doctor has referred to the head injury as a case of grievous hurt because apart from the external cut, on a x-ray being taken a linear fracture of the occipital bone was detected. Though the doctor has been cross-examined, there is really no challenge presented in regard to the gravity of the injury as opined by the doctor who defined it as 'grievous'. The only evidence on record is that of the injured sharanappa who is P. W. 1 and whose evidence has been accepted by the court, though there is some corroboration to his evidence from p. w. 4-nagachari, a school teacher who had witnessed the incidence. The police had treated it as an offence under Section 324 of the IPC but the charge-sheet on the basis of the medical evidence indicated Section 326 of the IPC. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 326 of the IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, s. i. for two months. Out of the fine, a sum of Rs. 800/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant sharanappa. The state of karnataka has assailed the correctness of this order through the present appeal and has applied for enhancement of sentence.

(3.) AT the hearing of the appeal, we have reviewed the record and we have heard the learned state public prosecutor on behalf of the state and the learned Advocate Sri vijaya kumar on behalf of the respondentaccused.