STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. KARIYAVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is relatively long delay of 241 days in filing this appeal and normally, we would have afforded the State Counsel time to file an application for condonation of delay. We are dispensing with these formalities, in so far as, we accept, the grounds adduced by the learned counsel for the delay and we formally condone the delay.

(2.) THE principal reason for doing this is because it is the duty of this Court to do a careful examination of the appeal on merits before ordering notice to the respondent accused for the reason that in those of the cases where there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal, issuance of notice to the accused is not only academic but would subject the opposite party to incur lot of expenditure, time, etc. , which is avoidable. Undoubtedly, in those of the cases where we are satisfied that the Sate has a good case or even arguable case, does not come within any of these categories.

(3.) THE learned Addl. SPP vehemently submitted that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. He recounted the circumstances and his submission is that all of them put together, particularly, a strongly incriminating circumstance, namely, recovery of personal items belonging to the deceased from accused No. 3, is highly incriminating. Normally, even though accused No. 3 is dead, this circumstance would have fastened a strong nexus, but there is one factor, which we cannot overlook. It has come on record that the illicit affair was going on between the deceased and the accused No. 1 Kariyavva, for the last 20 years and more and that the deceased used to not only regularly visit her house, but he used to stay for long period of time with her. Even after the death of her husband this situation continued and it has come on record that she had a grown up daughter, who has married and that she had asked the accused No. 1 not to continue with this scandal as it would reflect on her marital life, but, despite these requests the accused No. 1 was still regularly visiting him. In this background, if the personal items belonging to the deceased are found at that place and they are recovered at the instance of the accused No. 3 (deceased), who was a close relation, it cannot be held to be an incriminating circumstance.