KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order of conviction dated 26.02.2011 passed by the III Fast Track Court, Mysore, in Sessions Case No. 109/2010 is called in question in this appeal by the convicted accused.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution in brief is that, at about 9 p.m. on 06.01.2010, when the deceased Madappa was proceeding along with his brother Sumathi @ Javarappa -PW3 near Karikal Circle, Rammanahalli Village, Mysore Taluk, Mysore District, the accused all of a sudden came with knife M.O. 1 and threatened the deceased by asking money for consuming alcohol. The deceased did not accede to the request of the accused; the accused suddenly stabbed on the chest of the deceased, consequent upon which, the deceased collapsed on the spot, inasmuch as the heart was ruptured to maximum extent. PW1, the brother of the deceased who was also standing near a bakery in the very Circle drinking tea, saw the incident and called the Mysore South Police Station and gave information over phone. Immediately, PW15, Sub -Inspector of Police attached to Mysore South Police Station rushed to the spot, wherein he recorded the statement of PW1, the brother of the deceased as per Ex. P1. Based on Ex. P1, Crime No. 4/2010 came to be registered in Mysore South Police Station for offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC at about 11.30 p.m. on 06.01.2010. After completion of investigation PW17 Inspector of Police laid the chargesheet.

(3.) SRI B.S. Prasad, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the accused appears to be innocent; there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit any crime; the material on record is not sufficient to conclude that there was sufficient light for the witnesses to see the incident; the presence of the eye witnesses cannot be believed, inasmuch as they are chance witnesses; though the accused is arrested on 09.01.2010, the recovery pancha has deposed that the police, in the presence of the panchas recovered the knife from the accused on 07.01.2010; the appreciation of evidence by the Court below is improper and incorrect and consequently, the conclusion reached by the Trial Court is not correct.