NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point of law that really falls for determination in this appeal centres around the question as to where serious charges of murder and attempt to murder were made, a conviction can be virtually founded on the evidence of a solitary eye-witnesses. Though there is no reason why in criminal trials Courts should insist on multiple witnesses, it has become the order of the day to list the various heads of evidence and to virtually recoil backwards in those of the situations where the evidence is minimal. Once again, it brings us back to the age old principle of judicial wisdom which prescribes that is the intrinsic quality of the evidence and not the quantity or mass that matters.

(2.) THE incident in question took place at about 8. 00 p. m. on 24-5-1993 at Hotegali village within the limits of Chittakula Police Station. The police station is at a distance of about 10 k. ms. from the village. PW 5 Smt. Bhagi was sitting in her house talking to her son Chandrahasa who was an army man and who had come home on leave. It is alleged that the accused came to the house and that he fired at deceased Chandrahasa who was in a sitting position and that two of the bullets hit him in the chest and on the right arm respectively as a result of which he virtually died on the spot. The mother, Smt. Bhagi, states that she narrowly missed a similar fate in so far as one of the bullets grazed her and she sustained some minor injuries. The matter was reported to the police at 10. 00 p. m. on the next morning and the police commenced investigation in the course of which the accused was arrested. It is alleged that pursuant to certain information, the police seized a rifle along with a torch etc. The learned trial Judge accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the accsued both under Section 302 and Section 307, I. P. C. and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment and fine and it is against these convictions that the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) MR. Deshpande, the learned Counsel who represents the appellant, has submitted that the conviction is unsustainable because the solitary witness on whom the conviction rests is PW 5 Smt. Bhagi, who happens to be none other than the mother of the deceased. He also points out in the basis of the record that there was in existence some dispute with regard to land and that this was the real genesis for the incident in question. He states that quite apart from the relationship between the deceased and PW 5 that it is equally necessary to point out that the accused was in possession of the disputed land and that therefore there is no reason for him to attack and kill either PW 5 Smt. Bhagi or her son who was admittedly working outside and who had come there only for a short period of time. The learned Counsel submitted that the evidence of this witness bristles with a series of infirmation and he concentrated on some of the main ones in support of his contention that her evidence should be rejected. In the first instance, he relies on the evidence with regard to the question as to whether the premises had the benefit of an electric light or not. In this regard, he submitted that there is evidence from the representative of the K. E. B. who has in no uncertain terms deposed to the effect that even though the wiring etc. in the premises had been completed in January of that year, that it was only in August that the electric connection was made available. We need to point out here that the learned S. P. P. has seriously refuted this position and he has satisfied us from the documentary evidence that the wiring and inspection of the meter etc. , were in fact completed in January and that therefore, there can be little dispute about the fact that the electric connection must have become operational in that month itself. We do not need to dwell at great length with this evidence because we do find from the material on record that this is a case in which the witness has very clearly stated that the electric light was burning at the relevant time. From the evidence on record, we do not see any valid reason why we should accept the oral statement of the representative of the K. E. B. which goes against the documents on record. The other aspect of the matter and the more important one is that irrespective of whether there was an electric light or not, if the mother and the son were talking to each other at 8. 00 p. m. , it is quite obvious that they would not be sitting in the dark and that there was some other light source. Even in the cross-examination there has not been any serious challenge to the question with regard to the quantity of light that was present at the time of the incident. We do not therefore see much substance in this contention.