STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SIDDA ALIAS L SIDDIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by the State, the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Mysore, in Sessions Case 17 of 1973, acquitting the respondent, who was the accused therein, of the offence punishable under S.302 of IPC on two counts, is challenged.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the accused had illwill towards PW.4 C. M.Madaiah called Yajaman Madaiah on account of the distribution of sites to Harijans by PW.4. He had picked up quarrel with PW.4. By about 6 P.M. on 15-8-1972 the accused stabbed Basavanna who is the brother-in-law of PW.4 near the; house of PW1 Nanjamma when Basavanna and PW.4 were there. At that time Nagabasava, brother of PW.8 Powla, intervened and tbs accused stabbed him also, Basavanna died on the spot while Nagabasaya, sustained a severe stab injury. He was lying injured there when PW.8 Powla, went to him and Nagabasava stated to him that the accused had stabbed him. PW.1 Nanjamma and PW.2 Mallaiah saw this incident. FW.3 Chamama, PW.4 Madaiah and PW.8 Powla also saw the fag end of the incident. Information was reached to the polios station and Nagabasava was sent to the hospital at Kollegal where PW.7 Dr.P.N.Krishna, Murthy-attended on the injuries on Nagabasava. It is also, the case of the prosecution that Nagabasava gave his Statement as per Ex.P4 in the after-noon or evening of 16-8-1972, in the presence of PW.7 Dr.Krishna Murthy, when contacted by PW.9 S.Y. Lakkanavar, the Sub-Inspector of police and PW.15. M.Siddegowda, the Circle Inspector of Police. Nagabasava died on 18-8-1972, The accused was arrested on 7-9-1972 as he was absconding till then. He voluntarily gave information as per Ex.P21 that he had hidden a knife and bloodstained clothes in a brick kiln, and would show the place and produce them. Panchas were collected and the accused took them to the brick kilh and produced MO.1 knife, MO.6 jubba and MO.7 dhoti, and they were sealed and seized under panchanama Ex.P17. Investigation was completed and a charge-sheet was filed.

(3.) The learned State Public Prosecutor took us through the relevant portions of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and argued that the reasoning on which the learned Sessions Judge has based the acquittal, cannot stand scrutiny. We, found somq force in this contention of the leart ned State Public Prosecutor, While perusing the judgment] we noticed that a Standing Counsel Sri H.Dwarakanath had been appointed to defend the accused and he defended the accused and he Defended the accused from 3-12-1973, On looking into the order-sheet maintained in the sessions case, we noticed that the accused had engaged his own Counsel by name Sri D.V.Rama Rao. Sri D.V.Rama Rao had filed his memo of appearance and had attended on certain dates. After the charges were framed and the case was posted for trial, Sri Rama Rao sustained a fracture and, hence, was unabla to attend the Court. He requested for adjournmet and the case was adjourned on 2 or 3 occasions. On 19-11-1973, the date an which the case was posted for trial, the accused filed an application, supported by a medical certificate) in regard to, the fracture, of Sri Rama, Rao, praying for adjournment by two months on the ground that according to the Doctor's opinion Sri Kama Rao would not be able to walk about, coma to Court and conduct the casey at least for 2 months from that date The learned Sessions Judge wrote a lengthy order adjourning the trial to 3-12-73.