RAMEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Shimoga, for an offence under the First Part of Section 304 I. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for, 10 years; he has also been convicted under Section 14(d) of the Mysore Arms Act and sentenced to R. I. for one year, the sentences being directed to run concurrently. The case against him is that in the evening of 7-3-50 at about 5-15 P. M. he shot one Mullegowda who died the same night about three hours later.

(2.) It has been contended by Mr. Krishnamurthi, learned counsel for the Appellant, that the evidence in the case is insufficient to hold that it was the accused who shot Mullegowda. He relies strongly on the fact that the accused's brother one Sannegowda, who has been examined as D. W. 1 in the case, has unequivocally admitted that it was he that shot; that the license for the double-barrel gun from which the shots were fired stood in the name of Sanegowda; that it is natural to expect that he would have used his own gun and that the accused who had apparently a license to own a muzzle loader gun would have used that weapon. The evidence, however, appears to be quite clearly against the Appellant. P. W. 7 Capt. Appanna, an Assistant Medical Officer of Health, has deposed that in that evening he was taken by the S. I. Kuttapppa, p. W. 15, to Jannapura, to treat a stab case of one Channegowda 'a' Cidde- gowda, that while nearing that spot he met Mulle gowda who rushed by his side and went to the spot where the deceased Channegowda had fallen down, stopped there for two or three minutes and later went to the accused's house, that shortly after he heard two gun shot sounds from there, and people came running from the direction of the accused's house saying that Mullegowda had been shot; that he immediately went into the chavadi of accused's house which was about 75 to 100 ft. away from the spot where Channegowda's body was lying, that when he entered the chavadi he saw the accused and his brother Ciddegowda in the right hand side room, that Ramegowda had a double-barrel breach loader gun which is M. O. 1, that he asked the inmates of the house to give Mullegowda some water and some cloth to bandage him and that in the meantime the licensed pointed out a knife held in the out stretched right hand of Mullegowda with its big blade open. He removed the pen knife and closed the blade and gave it to P. C. Maha- lingiah, P. W. 13, who had followed him. The accused was standing on the threshold just at the inside of the room. Mullegowda was alive and told the accused to shoot him at the right spot and take him as " ", and requested the witness to give him some poison and to end his life. Absolutely nothing has been elicited why this evidence should be disbelieved, and it is fully corroborated by the evidence of P. Ws. 11 and 12 who rushed behind the deceased and are said to have been standing on the steps leading up to the chavadi just below the top step on which Mullegowda was standing when he was shot.

(3.) Mr. Krishnamurthi has argued that P. Ws. 11 and 12 have tried to deny that Mullegowda was armed. It may be that they did not notice the knife which is not after all such a very big one and is merely a big penknife. Even if they sought to make it appear that the deceased was not the aggressive party, it is difficult to disbelieve the rest of their evidence particularly when it is fully supported by the disinterested evidence of p. W. 7. P. W. 15, the Sub Inspector, p. W. 13, the police constable, and P. W. 14, one Kasim sab and P. W. 16, who was then a Revenue Inspector and now the Head Clerk of the Taluk Office at Mudigere, who all followed the Doctor immediately after, have all corroborated the Doctor. If really the shots had been fired not by the accused but by his brother Sannegowda, there is nothing shown why the witnesses would have implicated the accused rather than Channegowda. All the witnesses have seen the accused with M. O. 1 in his hand and have heard the deceased telling him to shoot again and kill him.