STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. GOVINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Manjula (P. W. 2) is the wife of one udayachandra (P. W. 1 ). One Kumar (deceased) is the family friend of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2. The deceased was unemployed and he was requesting P. W. 1 to secure some employment. The deceased used to visit the house of P. W. 1 often. On 26-7-98 (Sunday) at 9 p. m. P. W. 2 and the deceased were sitting together and conversing. P. W. 1 was in the house. A1 while passing by the house of P. W. 1 abused P. W. 2 and assaulted the deceased with iron rod on the head. A3 assaulted the deceased on the forehead with a club. A4 assaulted the deceased with a club. A2 and A5 also assaulted the deceased with a club. P. W. 1 was pushed aside by the accused when he tried to rescue. The accused decamped from the scene after the assault. P. W. 1 took the deceased in an auto to Nimhans. The deceased was pronounced dead at about 2. 45 a. m. in the night. P. W. 1 lodged the FIR at 3. 30 a. m. in the night on 27-7-1998. At the voluntary instance of a1, M. O. 3-iron rod was recovered. At the voluntary instance of A2 and A5, M. Os. 4 to 7 the clubs were recovered. One Abhimanyu (P. W. 3) and Muruli (P. W. 4) are the eye-witnesses to the incident and all the said witnesses supported the prosecution version deposing to the effect that the accused persons assaulted the deceased Kumar on 26-7-1998 around 9. 30 a. m. near the back yard of the house of P. W. 1.

(2.) THE accused had examined D. W. 1 (Dr. M. Salvarajan ). Ex. Dl (a) the M. L. C. Register is marked to show that the deceased was admitted to Nimhans with a history of lying unconscious on the road and that one George admitted him to the hospital. The trial Court found that the defence version is incredible. The trial Court relying upon the evidence of p. W. 1 to P. W. 4 found that the accused are guilty of the offence u/s. 304, Part II, IPC and not as charged u/s. 302, r/w 149, IPC. The accused are in appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 1031/2000 challenging their conviction. The state has filed Criminal Appeal No. 18/2001 seeki ng enhancement of sentence and the State has filed the appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 19/2001 challenging the acquittal of accused for a charge u/s. 302. IPC.

(3.) SRI G. Ramakrishna. learned Counsel for the accused listed the following omissions and contradictions in the evidence of P. W 1 to P. W. 4 and other circumstances to contend that the conviction order is bad in law.