MALLAPPA SHIVINGAPPA CHANAGRI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question of law which does not appear to be covered by any decision of the supreme Court or this Court arises for decision in this case.

(2.) The appellant was charged for the murder of his mistress Shiddawwa. It is said that due to some petty quarrel the appellant cut her on here back on the night of 7-2-1959 with a sickle and about a month thereafter she died. The injured was admitted to the hospital on 8-2-1959 but, we are told that she was discharged from hospital as desired by her relations on 5-3-1959 and that she died on 5-3-1959. Post-mortem examination of her dead body very soon after her death.

(3.) The prosecution produced in support of its case (1) the evidence of the alleged eye-witness and (2) the dying declaration of the deceased marked as Ex. 5 (b). So far as the evidence of the occurrence witness is concerned all of them without exception have turned hostile to the prosecution and the learned Government Pleader conceded that without the assistance of the evidence afforded by the dying declaration, the remaining evidence is insufficient to convict the appellant. There fore, the primary question for our consideration is whether the dying declaration (Ex 5 (b) ) is admissible in evidence and whether the same can be relied on.