CHANDUSAB NABISAB ANNIGERI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) The appellant was the accused in the following circumstances:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the complainant, PW.1 and the neighbours and relatives of the deceased namely, PWs.15 to 19 had turned hostile. Therefore, the solitary evidence on which the prosecution sought to establish the case against the appellant was that of the Medical Practitioner, Investigating Officer and the dying declaration. Placing reliance on the evidence of the Medical Practitioner, PW.33 and the dying declaration recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police at Exhibit P.32 and the second dying declaration recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate marked as Exhibit P.28 and the evidence of the Tahsildar, who was examined as PW.28, the court below has held that though a case for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC is not made out, the prosecution had established its case for an offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC and consequently, has imposed a severe punishment, which, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, was not justified. Though the medical history would indicate that the deceased was severely injured and was in vegetative condition for over four days, the appellant having caused the death of the deceased cannot be presumed, unless the prosecution establishes a case beyond all reasonable doubt. There were no eye witnesses to the incident and it is circumstantial evidence that is sought to be foisted against the appellant. However strong the circumstances that are sought to be made out with reference to the previous history of quarrels between the appellant and the deceased, the law requires that in order to bring home the charge, which would visit the appellant with a serious punishment of imprisonment for a considerable period of time, it would require that the prosecution establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In this regard, the learned Counsel would point out that there are serious infirmities in the evidence of the prosecution, which are unreliable and could not be the basis of the findings that have been arrived at by the court below.