STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. HANUMANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned SPP on merits and while seriously considering the 3 strong circumstances which he is relying on, we need to point out that as far as the first of these, namely, the fact that PW1 who is a shepherd and who is alleged to have been grazing the goats close-by when the deceased was stabbed allegedly by the accused and who claims that he immediately went there and saw the accused carrying a 3 months old child leaving the place with blood stains on his person, is sufficient to be treated almost on par with an eye witness. What the learned SSP submits that it is this very witness who has gone to the police and lodged the complaint and that therefore, his presence at this place cannot really be disputed. His submission is that if for whatever reason this witness gave evidence in a manner that justify his being treated as hostile that it is important for the Court to take note of the fact that when he has been cross-examined he has come back to his original statement. The submission is that this part of evidence is good evidence regardless of the fact that the witness has wavered both before and after.

(2.) We have pointed out to the learned SPP that even though the few sentences on which he places reliance squarely implicates the accused that the Court cannot attach any high level of credibility or conclusiveness to evidence of this type because the witness has prevaricated both before and after this evidence. The law with regard to circumstantial evidence is well settled in so far as every individual circumstance has to be conclusively established and the circumstances taken collectively must have been pointing to only one irresistible conclusion, viz killing of the accused. The circumstance No. 1 is therefore, a weak circumstance.

(3.) As regard the second circumstances relied on by the learned Counsel, namely, the fact that there is evidence of the parents that the deceased was last taking the child to the hospital. We have gone through this evidence and again, though there is some reference to the allegation that the accused was suspecting the deceased, the evidence does not conclusively indicate as to what was the nature of the suspicion and how serious it was. At the same time, we do accept that this circumstance is a strong circumstance against the accused.