SHERAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the accused-appellant challenges his conviction and sentence under S. 302, I.P.C. passed by the Court of Sessions at Bidar. The charge against the accused is that on 15-1-1987, at about 6.30 p.m., on the public road near the tailoring shop of one Vittal and Ambedkar temple at Chillergi village in Bidar Taluk, he committed the murder of Shankarappa by assaulting him with a knife. The motive for this murder is said to be the illegitimate connection of deceased for 4 or 5 years with the wife of the accused and he did not even heed to the advice of the Panchayathdars. On that evening, at about 6 or 6.10 p.m., when P.W. 1 and his wife were near the Ambedkar temple in the village, the accused was standing there and when the deceased came from the opposite direction, he immediately rushed towards him alleging that his wife had been the keep of the deceased. He chose the centre part of the chest for the assault with the knife and his brother who had sustained injury ran towards the house of' Bhimappa screaming and fell behind it. The accused also was grappled by the complainant P.W. 1, but, then he ran away.The injury was tied with "kunchige" that was with the wife of P.W. 1 and the injured removed to the local hospital. There was no doctor but only a compounder. Having seen that the deceased had died, they were asked to take back the body and place it where the injured was lying. P.W. 1 took a phone call to the Police Control Room of Bidar. The Police Constable who received it, in turn, transmitted it to the Circle Inspector of Police who went to the spot. Because of oral complaint given by P.W. 1, he made arrangement to send it to the jurisdictional Police Station at Janwada Police Station for the purpose of registering a case and thereafter took up investigation. He examined the witnesses to the incident including P.W.3, held inquest over the deadbody, subjected it for autopsy and had made a search for the accused. The accused however was taken to the custody on 17-1-1987 when he was produced by Head Constable 315 and Police Constable 601. The banian and dhoti worn by him had stains of blood were seized under panchanama Ex. P-10 and thereafter, on his voluntary information furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the knife used in the commission of the offence of murder was seized. It was kept concealed in a sugarcane field. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed for the aforesaid offence.

(2.) The Sessions Court, Bidar having considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution believed the eye-witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 and also considered the other circumstantial evidence and found him guilty for this offence.

(3.) In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that one of the eye-witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 who are the brother and brother's wife of the deceased respectively ought not to have been relied upon by the Court. Secondly, the Court below was in error in considering Ex. P-1 as a F.I.R. Thirdly, the motive is not so strong as to provoke the accused to commit this offence and even otherwise, if the entire evidence is believed, the case does not fall under Sec. 302, I.P.C. as it is the prosecution evidence that after some altercation the deceased was stabbed.