STATE Vs. BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an extremely unfortunate case where the deceased father has succumbed to the injuries inflicted by his own son. Apparently, there was some dispute with regard to the "hut" in which they were living and on the evening of 21-5-1991 at about 7. 00 p. m the accused got into a fight with the deceased father went into the hut brought a "kathi" and inflicted two injuries on the old man, one on the head and one on the arm. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the injuries were not life threatening, the injured was taken to the government hospital and after a long lapse of 32 days he finally died. The charge was under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned trial judge, after evaluating the evidence which essentially consists of the depositions of the son-in-law P. W. 1-thowda and P. W. 2-susheela, who is his daughter as also P. W. 6-rama, who is the son by the first wife, came to the conclusion that there are too many infirmities in the evidence and accordingly acquitted the accused. The state has challenged the order of acquittal through the present appeal.

(2.) WE have heard the learned additional state public prosecutor, who has taken us through the entire record and his principal submission is that the evidence of P. W. 1 alone is sufficient to sustain the conviction, that there is ample corroboration from the evidence of P. W. 2- susheela and the medical evidence and the other supportive evidence and that on this material the order of acquittal should be set aside. He has also brought to our notice that the infirmities noted by the learned trial judge are extremely trivial and that they are liable to be ignored. Also, he has emphasised that the oral evidence has been tested in the cross-examination and nothing is brought on record to indicate that p. ws. 1, 2 and 6 have any animus or hostility against the accused nor has it been demonstrated to us that their credibility has been impeached.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondent-accused, the learned Advocate submitted that admittedly there were factions within the family over the dispute relating to the hut and that in the course of the quarrel that took place, it is not very clear as to who exactly inflicted the injuries. It is also on record as pointed out by the learned Advocate that the deceased had consumed some liquor and his submission is that in this condition, it was he who provoked the quarrel. It is also pointed out that there are inconsistencies between the versions of p. ws. 1, 2 and 6 and consequently the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.