GULLAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the same judgment. Cr. A. 319/57 is submitted by the appellant through the Superintendent of the Jail in which he la undergoing imprisonment. Cr. A. 333/57 is presented by him through an Advocate.

(2.) The appellant Gullappa is convicted by the District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, under Section 302 J. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life on the allegation that he committed the murder or one Suganna, son of Monappa, at about midnight time, on 9-3-1957, while he was sleeping in his threshing ground of 'Makel Benchi Hola' in Sivangi village. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Suganna had developed criminal intimacy with Malkawa, the wife of the appellant, and that was the motive for the appellant to make up his mind to commit the murder of Suganna while he was sleeping in his threshing field called Makel Benchi Hola in Sivangi village. Basanna, the younger brother of the deceased, informed the patel of Sivangi village on 9-3-1957 that he learnt from Wadu Hanumantha that his brother Suganna, who was sleeping in his threshing floor of Makel Benchi Hola had been murdered. The Patel proceeded to the field and found Suganna lying dead in a pool of blood. He enquired Basanna as to whether he suspected any person as being responsible for the murder of his brother. Basanna stated to the Patel that he suspected Eachappa and Yadgir Sugappa as being responsible for the murder of his brother. On the information so conveyed, the Patel wrote a report and sent the same to the Police Station at Ramdurg on 10-3-57. On receipt of the report of the Patel, the Sub-Inspector of Police who was in charge of the Police Station at Ramdurg registered a case for an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. against Bachappa and Sugappa and submitted a First Information Report. He proceeded to Sivangi village. On reaching Makel Benchi field, which is on the way from Ramdurg to Sivangi, he collected Pan-chavatdars and conducted an inquest over the dead body of Suganna and forwarded the dead body for post mortem examination. He then examined some witnesses during the course of investigation. He came to know that it is the appellant that was responsible for the murder of Suganna. He therefore arrested the appellant on 13-3-1957. It is alleged that the appellant gave information to the Investigating Officer immediately after his arrest and volunteered to produce the axe with which the offence had been committed and also the bloodstained clothes that were on his person at the time of the incident. The Sub-Inspector of Police collected the panchayatdars and proceeded with the appellant to his house. It is stated by the prosecution, the appellant entered his house and produced M. O. 1 the axe and M. Os. 2 and 3, the clothes belonging to him from out of his house. It is alleged further that though all these articles had been washed, there were Still some traces of blood on them and therefore, the Sub-Inspector seized them and took them into his possession for the purpose of further investigation. The Circle Inspector of Police arrived at the place and he took up the further investigation from the Sub-Inspector of Police. It is also stated that the appellant volunteered to make a confession statement on 14-3-1957. He was, therefore, produced before the Munsiff-Magis-trate of Deodurg on 16-3-1957 for the purpose of recording his confession statement. It is alleged that the appellant even after he was duly warned voluntarily made a confession statement before the Magistrate. For reasons which are not disclosed, the investigation was once again transferred to the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 10 Parwathreddy. The material objects viz., the axe and the two clothes belonging to the appellant, which had been seized by the Sub-Inspector of Police on 13-3-57 were submitted to the Magistrate on 20-3-57 and they were dispatched by the Magistrate to the office of the Chemical Examiner on 27-3-57. After completing the investigation the Sub-Inspector of Police P. W. 10 Parwatreddy placed a charge-sheet against the appellant before the First Class Magistrate of Deodurg, the very same Magistrate who had recorded the confession statement of the appellant.

(3.) The learned Magistrate recorded the evidence of the three eye-witnesses to the incident and after perusing the papers filed under Section 173 of Cr. P. C. and after examining the appellant under Section 342 Cr. P. C., framed a charge for an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. against the appellant. It appears from the record that the learned Magistrate read over and explained the charge to the appellant and called upon him to plead and that the appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and the same was recorded by the learned Magistrate. After recording this plea of the appellant, the learned Magistrate committed the appellant to take his trial in the Court of Sessions at Raichur. It is in respect of the charge so framed by the learned Magistrate of Deodurg that the appellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Raichur, in the Sessions Case referred to above.