LAXMAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us was the original accused in Sessions Case No. 171/93. He was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. The charge was that on 21-2-1993 at 8 p. m. on the road in front of Mahadevappa Hundekar's house at Tadaslur Village, that he had assaulted his younger brother Basavaraj with an iron rod which assault ultimately resulted in the death of Basavaraj. The accused was originally arrested for an offence punishable under Section 325, I.P.C. which was thereafter altered to Section 302, I.P.C. after Basavaraj died. On completion to the investigation, the accused was chargesheeted and subsequently, came to be committed for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum, by his judgment and order D/- 29th December 1994, held the accused guilty of the offence with which he was charged and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life. The present appeal is directed against that conviction.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that the accused was the elder of the two sons of PW-1 Parvatevva. It was alleged that the accused had sent his wife away and that he was not doing any worthwhile job in so far as even as far as the agricultural work was concerned, this had been delegated to some other persons. The prosecution alleges that the mother had agreed to sell her house and that the accused was objecting to this pursuant to which it was decided to pay him Rs. 5,000/- on the transaction taking place. The prosecution alleges that this transaction did not materialise and that the accused was under the impression that his younger brother was responsible for what happened. On the night of the incident, the accused is alleged to have followed the deceased Basavaraj who was returning to his residence and at that time, he was carrying an iron rod approximately 33 inches in length. It is alleged that he approached the deceased from the rear and dealt four blows to him with the iron rod as a result of which, the deceased sustained head injuries and had to be held by the person present. The deceased was taken in a tractor to the hospital at Belgaum where he was administered medical attention despite which, he died the following night. The prosecution case was that the accused had done away with his younger brother because he was angered about the house transaction. The accused denied the incident completely and it is his case that the charge against him is totally groundless. The first submission canvassed by the appellant's learned advocate is that undoubtedly, on the night of 21-2-1993, the deceased was assaulted by some person, but it is his submission that merely because the accused was a person who was not doing any work and was not well thought of either in family circle or by others, that the immediate suspicion fell on him. The learned advocate submitted that the evidence of the mother does not assist the prosecution at all because, PW-1 Parvatevva has come on the scene some time after the incident. This position is undoubtedly true, but the fact remains that she has deposed to the general background and her evidence does support the prosecution case that there was some problem with regard to the house transaction about which the accused was not happy. The same position applies as far as PW-2 Shantawwa is concerned because, even though she is the sister of the deceased, she came to the spot along with her mother after the incident had taken place. Her evidence, however, does indicate that the accused had got into a violent quarrel with her husband in the recent past. PW-3 Baswaraj is an eye witness to the incident. He has deposed about the house transaction which is the background and he also states that he resides at the spot where the incident took place. According to him, the accused gave four full-blooded blows with the iron rod to the deceased in his presence, three of which landed on the head and one on the arm. He states that he was instrumental in helping the deceased and taking him to hospital. The main ground of attack as far as this eye witness is concerned has been concentrated on the fact that the defence had, through two witness PW-9 Mallappa, who is the person in charge of switching on the road lights and PW-14 Shankar, who is a K.E.B. Officer, sought to contend that since the electricity bill was outstanding, the power supply had been cut off and that the road lights were not burning on that day. The contention was that Basawaraj could not have seen the incident even assuming he was there because it was dark. On a scrutiny of the evidence, we find that PW-9 has very clearly deposed to the fact that he had switched the road lights on that date and that the lights were burning and PW-14 has also deposed to the fact that the road lights were burning on that day. This evidence is quite conclusive and even though the learned defence counsel had seriously contended that since PW-14 has admitted that the bill was outstanding and that if the bills are outstanding, the power supply is cut off, that the Court must accept the position that the power supply was not in existence on that date. We are however, unable to accept this because of the positive evidence to the contrary. As far as the visibility problem is concerned, there does not appear to be any difficulty because, there was enough of' light and the witness who is a resident of the village and who lives in the house opposite to where PW-1 resides, had no difficulty in identifying both the assailant as also the victim. Nothing has emerged in his cross-examination to shake his credibility and in this background, the learned Trial Judge was perfectly justified in having accepted this evidence.

(3.) More or less the same position emerges as far as the next eye-witness PW-4 is concerned because, his house is next to the house of P.W. 3 and he states that he was seated on the Katta when the incident occurred. He has seen the incident and has deposed about it like P.W.3. As far as this witness is concerned, the learned defence counsel has submitted that his evidence is unnatural because of one crucial fact namely that had he been present an the spot, he would certainly have intervened in the incident and either prevented the assault or at least chased the accused or caught him. We find it difficult to accept this line of attack because, the incident was one of very short duration and the opportunity of intervening in the incident was virtually non-existent and the witnesses themselves state that they went to the assistance of the injured person rather than run after the accused and this conduct is fully understandable because, the injured was profusely bleeding and it was he who required assistance.