SHAMARAO BHAIRU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Shyama Rao was convicted under Section 302, I, P. G. for the murder of his father Ghairu on the morning of 13-1-1959 at Khemanna's land, in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1959 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Belgaum, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by that order, he has come up in appeal to this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that there was enmity between the appellant and his father Khairu; the appellant was the eldest son of deceased Bhairu, who had two other sons named Devappa and Parashuram; about three years prior to the 00-currence there was a partition in the family of deceased Bhairu; thereafter, the appellant and Devappa lived together in a separate house while the deceased and his youngest son Parashuram lived together in another house; Devappa died several months before the occurrence; thereafter, his wife P. W. 3 Gangubai was unable to live with the appellant due to constant quarrels between the two; she left the appellant and began to live in the Rouse of deceased Bhairu. Some time before this occurrence, it is said that Parashuram had cut the leg of the appellant and in that connection there was a case pending against Parashuram. It is unnecessary to dwell at length on the several episodes evidencing the strained relationship between the appellant on one side and the deceased, P. W. 2 and Parashuram on the other. Enmity between them is admitted. The further case of the Prosecution is that on the early morning of 13-1-1959, P. W. 2 Gangubai had been to her field known as 'Sunagar Set' to harvest the pea crop; very soon after, the appellant, his wife and some coolies came to that field; the appellant obstructed P. W. 2 from harvesting the crop. He claimed the same as his; in that connection there was exchange of abuses between the appellant and P. W. 2; then the appellant assaulted P. W. 2; therefore, P. W. 2 went back to the house and complained to her father-in-law, the deceased; thereafter, the deceased and P, W, 2 proceeded to the field in question; when they were going in the pathway known as 'Mullyachi Wat' in Khemanna's land they found the appellant coming from the opposite direction; at that time, the deceased questioned the appellant about his misbehaviour towards P. W. 2; irritated by the intervention of the deceased, the appellant first assulted the deceased with a stick which was in his hand; on receiving those blows the deceased fell down and cried out that he was dead; the appellant then told the deceased that he was not still dead and so saying cut him on the muscles of the left leg, as a result of which the deceased instantaneously died. This in short is the prosecution case,

(3.) There is no dispute that the deceased sustained injuries at the place and at the time mentioned in the charge and that he died instantaneousl after receiving the injuries in question. The versio of the accused meets the prosecution case ha way. Therefore, we may notice the same at the stage itself. But before doing so one more face needs to be mentioned. Immediately after the occurrenee which took place at about 8 or 8-30 a. m the appellant had proceeded to Wadagaon Police Station and laid a complaint which is marked a Exhibit 10-A in this case. There is some contrc versy about the admissibility of this complaint which we shall refer a little later. We may now proceed to notice the version of the accused a mentioned by him during his statement under Section lion 342 Cr. P.C. This is what he says: