STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. HANUMANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned State Public Prosecutor 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 PW -1 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 month 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 State Public Prosecutor submits is 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 the 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 State Public Prosecutor that even though the few sentences on which he places reliance squarely implicate 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.) LASTLY , there is the evidence of recovery of the knife which appears to have been established. Normally, this would have been a very strong circumstance against the accused because the evidence indicates that the knife was stained with human blood. Unfortunately, there is nothing to indicate that this human blood was of the same blood group as of the deceased and consequently, though the circumstance has been proved it is really inconclusive. In view of this position, we find it difficult to interfere with the order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused.