FAKIRAPPA GANGAPPA MADLI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The seven petitioners have been committed to the Court of Sessions at Dharwar under Section 207A(10) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to stand their trial for offences punishable under Ss. 148 and 302 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of one Gangayya on 6-5-1964. Mr. Government Pleader. P.L. Patil the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the order of commitment passed by the Magistrate deserves to be quashed as there is no prima facie case against the accused.

(2.) The story of the prosecution is that when deceased Gangayya was going along with Shantayya (P.W. 1) at about 1 A.M. he was murdered by all the accused somewhere on the road between Hireharkuni and Kamdolli. Besides Shantayya, Neelakanthagowda and Rudriah were alleged to be eye-witness to the incident. The prosecution also alleged that a blood-stained axe, a blood-stained sickle and a blood-stained knife were recovered during the course of the investigation of the information given respectively by Accused No. 1, Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 4. It was also alleged that the shirt worn by Accused No. 1 at the time of his arrest had some blood-stains. The investigation papers also disclosed that an axe was recovered at the instance of accused No. 3.

(3.) During the course of the committal proceedings all the three eye-witnesses were examined by the Prosecutor. All of them stated that they did not know who committed the murder of Gangayya. The result of the evidence of the eye-witnesses recorded during the committal proceedings was that the prosecution could not establish the identity of any of the assailants responsible for the murder of Gangayya. At that stage the learned Advocate appearing for the accused submitted that in view of the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses, there was no evidence disclosing a prima facie case against any of the accused and no basis for passing an order of commitment. The learned Magistrate however rejected this submission by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramnarayan v. State of Maharashtra, , AIR1964 SC 949 , (1964 )66 BOMLR714 , 1964 CriLJ44 , [1964 ]5 SCR1064 wherein their Lordships laid down that the statements recorded by the Police during the course of the investigation together with the other documents and circumstances disclosed by the same formed evidence required to be considered by the Magistrate in considering as to whether the accused should or should not be committed.