BABU ALIAS VENKATESH BABU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the matter has reached for hearing, the learned Counsel M/s. Tomy Sebastian and Associates engaged by the Appellant neither turn up to argue the matter, nor has any representation been made on his behalf in Court and hence on the peculiar facts of the case, we felt it proper to appoint an Advocate, viz., Sri E.R. Diwakar, at the cost of the State to argue the case for the accused and assist the Court as amicus curiae. We accordingly invited Sri E.R. Diwakar to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the accused and in response to our request, the learned amicus curiae argued the matter and also took us through the relevant evidence on record. Thus we heard the learned amicus curiae Sri E.R. Diwakar, who was invited by us to appear as amicus curiae and argue the matter on behalf of the Appellant, and also the learned State Public Prosecutor for the Respondent -State at a considerable length and we have also gone through the material evidence on record in detail.

(2.) THE sole accused, who is the Appellant herein, was put up for trial before the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that on 16.11.1994 at about 4.40 p.m. in the evening at N.P. Lane in Cottonpet, Bangalore, near a public tap, he voluntarily caused hurt to the deceased Shobha by stabbing her by means of a knife and thereby caused her death.

(3.) THE facts of the prosecution case lie in a very narrow compass and shorn of details may be summarised as follows: