STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. MAHADEV YAMANAPPA GUDASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Advocates on both sides on merits. We have also perused the record of the case. While the learned State Public Prosecutor appears to be right when he points out that the evidence of the two injured persons P Ws. 2 and 7 is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and that it is conclusively established that it was the accused who is known to them who had assaulted both these persons and caused two fractures to PW2 and simple injuries to PW7, the submission is that it is very necessary that this Court must come down heavily on the wrong practice followed by the trial Courts in case after case wherein the accused are acquitted on the ground that independent evidence is not available for purposes of corroboration. In this case, two witnesses were produced as the so -called independent witnesses but they have turned hostile and therefore, that evidence is of no consequence. Regardless of this, the learned State Public Prosecutor submits that the existing evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

(2.) MR . Jagadish Patil, learned Advocate who represents the Respondent accused points out to us that both the parties are agriculturists and that admittedly there was a violent quarrel between them in relation to the cutting of the jawar crop. His submission is that in this background and the background of hostility that the trial Court was right in holding that the rule of prudence would require that before a conviction could result that some reliable independent evidence must be before the Court. Secondly, what he submits is that the injuries that have been complained of could easily have been sustained as a result of a violent fall or any other accident that could occur in the course of agricultural activities and that the benefit of doubt has rightly been extended to the accused.

(3.) UNDOUBTEDLY , when an assault takes place there will be some background of hostility but the Court address itself to the question as to why would an injured person falsely implicate the accused if someone else has been involved in the assault and exonerate the guilty person in order to falsely implicate the innocent. Simple citizens such as the villagers, agriculturists and others are not seasoned litigants nor do they have the cunningness to falsely implicate and five false evidence on oath and generally, irrespective of some blemishes which are understandable because of their status, the long time delay, etc; their evidence is by and large acceptable to the Court barring instances where the defence can establish that the evidence is false or motivated. The real test comes from the fact that the injuries corroborate the evidence and that medical evidence also is almost a foolproof corroboration and consequently, even in the absence of independent or outside evidence the Courts would be justified, provided the evidence is generally creditworthy, in basing a conviction on this material.