SIDDARAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant accused was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 173/02. THE learned Sessions Judge on trial has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but however insofar as offences punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code he has been acquitted. THE accused is in appeal questioning the conviction.

(2.) THE date of incident is 4.11.2002 at about 7.15 p.m. Complainant is P. W. 1, father of the deceased. THE complaint was lodged on 4.11.2002 at 9.00 p.m. THE accused is one Siddaraju. Deceased is one Swamy. THE injured is P.W.6. THE case of the prosecution is that the deceased Swamy, P.W.6 Siddaraju and one Hemavathy are the children of P.W.I and they are residing at Shankarapura. One Chikkalingaiah is the younger brother of P. W. 1 and Gowramma is his wife. THE house of Chikkalingaiah is adjacent to the house of P.W. 1 Kalingaiah. Case of the prosecution is that the accused had illicit intimacy with Gowramma. P.W.1 was advising accused not to come to the house of Gowramma and not to continue the relationship, but accused had a quarrel with P.W.1 for his advice. Hence P.W.1 lodged a complaint as against accused. After about a weeks' time accused had come to the house of P.W.1 in his absence and threatened his wife i.e., P.W.4 that he would do away with the lives of all in the family. P.W.4 informed her children and her husband on their return about the threat meted out by the accused on the same day in the evening at about 7.15 p.m. THE accused came near the house of P.W.1 and the deceased Swamy asked as to why he had threatened his mother. Immediately accused took out a long knife and assaulted over the neck of deceased Swamy. He sustained bleeding injuries and fell down. He was taken to the hospital at Nanjangud, but however on the way to the hospital he succumbed to the injury. Immediately after assaulting the deceased accused went to the house of Gowramma and tried to escape. P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged the complaint against the accused and a case was registered in Crime No. 173/02. Accused was arrested at 11.15 p.m. on the same day by the Investigating Officer, P.W.10. THE body was sent to the post-mortem and P.W.9 conducted autopsy and the report is at Ex.P.10. He also certifies M.O.1 the long knife. THE complaint also further discloses that P.W.6 i.e., the brother of the deceased tried to intervene and he also sustained certain injuries. P.W.6 was taken to the hospital and was treated by P.W.8, the doctor. After the lodging of the complaint P.W.10 PSI took up the investigation and sent the FIR, which is marked as Ex.P.12. THE spot mahazar was done and P.W.3 is the inquest witness for the said spot mahazar. P.W.4 is the mother of deceased and wife of P.W.I and she spoke about the M.O.I i.e., the machu and narrates the incident. She is also an eyewitness. P.W.5 is a witness to the panchanama and seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.1 was recovered from house of Gowramma. THE panchanama and seizures are marked at Ex.P.4, P.W.6 is the injured witness and the brother of deceased and narrates the incident and identifies M.O.1. P.W.7 has turned hostile who deposes that he has not seen the incident. P.W.11 is the police constable who carried the seized articles to FSL. P.W.12 is the head constable who has carried the accused to the hospital inasmuch as he has suffered certain injuries on the forehead while entering the house of Gowramma. P.W.13 is the head constable as on 4.11.2002. P.W.14 is an independent eyewitness. He speaks about the incident and also about accused rushing to the house of Gowramma and he having hit the door and sustaining injuries. He also identifies M.O.1 i.e., the machu. P.W.16 is the police constable who carried the body to the post-mortem and along with M.Os.4 to 8 which are the clothes worn by the deceased. P.W.17 is witness to the Ex.P.4. P.W.18 is the CPI who took up the further investigation of the case and thereafter filed charge-sheet.

(3.) INDEED having regard to the evidence which is let in by the prosecution during the course of trial Mr. Vishwanatha Poojary was not in a position to submit anything much except submitting that all the witnesses are close relations of deceased and no independent witnesses are examined.