SHIVAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocate for the appellant Sri.Jagadish Patil and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that about two years earlier to the incident, the deceased- Hanamant had accidentally called Smt. Gouramma, wife of the accused over phone, even though it was a call on wrong number, the accused started suspecting that the deceased was having illicit relationship with his wife and in that regard there was ill-will between the accused and the deceased. The accused was proclaiming that he will finish the deceased on one day or the other. In this regard, there was a panchayat in the village held by the elders who have advised the accused and pacified him. On 18.05.2015 the deceased along with his friends Basavaraj, Siddappa and Hanamantagouda went to bayalu Rangamandira at about 10.00 pm and all of them had slept there. On the intervening night of 18/19.05.2015 at 00.30 hours, the accused had assaulted the deceased Hanamant with an axe on his neck, head and other parts of the body and caused his death. It is stated that the accused had committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC , for short) suspecting that the deceased was having illicit relationship with his wife. The informant Rayappa, the father of the deceased Hanamant, lodged the first information on 19.05.2015 at 8.30 am and the same was registered in Crime No.57/15 at Amingad Police Station and FIR was registered as per Ex.P-21. The Investigating Officer after holding investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The committal Court took cognizance of the matter and after securing the presence of the accused and after following the procedure contemplated under Section 207 and 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C. ) committed the matter to the Principal District and Sessions Court, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court ) by passing an order as required under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. The trial Court secured the presence of the accused and framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) It is the contention of the appellant accused that the trial Court has committed an error in forming an opinion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is perverse, illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. It is his submission that, admittedly, the incident had taken place in the mid night on a New Moon day. The prosecution has not placed any material to prove that there was any source of light at the scene of offence. Under such circumstances, the witnesses identifying the accused is most improbable. The version of PWs.6 to 8-the so called eye-witnesses, is also doubtful. There are material contradictions in the evidence of these witnesses with regard to the time of offence and also the manner in which the offence had taken place. The conduct of these witnesses is also suspicious, in the sense, they have not made any attempt either to prevent the accused from committing the offence or to catch him immediately after the incident. It is the version of all the eyewitnesses that there was a bed on which the deceased had slept and it was blood stained after the incident. But no such blood stained bed was seized by the Investigating Officer. Even according to the prosecution itself there are several houses nearby the scene of offence, but no independent eyewitnesses from the locality are examined. It is his further submission that even according to the eyewitnesses and the Investigating Officer, the police were present at the scene of offence within an hour after the incident but no FIR came to be registered immediately, thereafter. The FIR came to be registered belatedly at 7.30 am. Therefore, it is clear that there is embellishment and possibility of false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out.