IMRAN @ KARADI IMRAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by convicted accused No. 1 in S.C. No. 10/2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court, Chitradurga is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.8.2005 passed in the said case convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 1/2 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ - for the said offence.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as under: P.W. 1 Shivamma had been engaged with the deceased Jayadeva. On 26.10.2003, deceased Jayadeva requested P.W. 1 to meet him at some place in Chitradurga and accordingly P.W. 1 met him. Both of them went to Chitradurga Fort and while they were sitting behind Ekanatheshwari Temple, at about 12.00 noon on that day, one unknown person backed by two others, came there and demanded said Jayadeva to pay money. However, said Jayadeva questioned the unknown person as to why he should pay money to him. By that time, the said unknown person took out knife and stabbed on his stomach and went away. P.W. 1 who was by the side of said Jayadeva screamed for help and with the help of persons who came there shifted Jayadeva to the District Hospital, Chitradurga where he underwent surgery and later shifted to Basaveshwara Hospital. P.W. 1 lodged report about the incident before the Station House Officer, Kote Police Station, Chitradurga as per Ex.P1, based on which, case in Crime No. 164/2003 came to be registered initially for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC against three unknown persons and FIR was submitted to the jurisdictional magistrate as per Ex.P12. The injured Jayadeva succumbed to the injuries on 30.10.2003. On receipt of the death memo, the I.O. filed a report to the jurisdictional Court seeking to alter the offence to Section 302 IPC. During the investigation, the I.O. held inquest over the dead body and later dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. The doctor who conducted post mortem examination submitted report as per Ex.P9 opining that death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to the vital organ namely lung.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader for the respondent -State.