BHEEMARAYA MARIYAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the appellant-accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 27/28.2.2013 passed by the Fast Track and Sessions Judge-VII, Bangalore in S.C.No.583/2010, wherein the appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and other offences and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments Ex.P1 are that, one Mahadevamma has lodged the complaint on 13.5.2009 stating that she is residing in the address mentioned in the complaint with her children and is doing coolie work for her livelihood. She is the native of Byluru village. Her husband expired about 15 years back. Thereafter, she came to Yelahanka and residing at Ambedkarnagar. She is having three daughters and one son from her husband. Since 10 years she came in contact with one Bheemaraya (appellant herein) and was leading her life with him. On 15.2009 at about 9.30 p.m. the complainant, Souramma (deceased) and one Anjaneyalu (P.W.21) in order to go to Ambedkarnagar were sitting near house No. 307 situate by the side of the road at 15th Main road and were talking to each other, at that time, accused Bheemaraya by consuming alcohol came to the said place and picked up quarrel with the complainant and abused her in filthy language asking her as to what work she is having with the said Souramma and Anjaneyalu and assaulted her with hands and also with stone which was lying there and also pulled her hair. At that time, Souramma and Anjaneyalu came to her rescue and he has abused them also in filthy language and took out the same stone and caused bleeding injury to Souramma. Souramma fell down and in the meanwhile, people gathered there and at that time, accused left the place. As such, the complainant has requested the police to take action against the accused for having abused her in filthy language and also for assaulting her, Anjaneyalu and Souramma with stone. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No. 128/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 324 of IPC. Thereafter, on the demise of Souramma due to the injuries and as per the requisition by the police, the offence under Section 302 of IPC was also added in the case.

(3.) Learned Amicus Curiae made the submission that as per the case of the prosecution, PWs-2 and 21 are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident, but he submitted that looking to their evidence, PW-2 though stated that she has also sustained injuries from the accused, she has not taken any treatment and no documents are produced to show that she has sustained injuries. Therefore, this itself clearly goes to show that in order to falsely implicate the accused in this case such allegations are made as against him. He also submitted that so far as another alleged eye witness, PW.21- Anjaneyalu, is concerned in the evidence of PW.2 throughout her examination-in-chief at the first instance, no where it is stated that he was also present when the incident was going on. It is only in further examination it is stated that PW.21- Anjaneyalu was also present at the spot. Hence, learned counsel submitted that this also raises reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court about the presence of PW.2 as well as PW.21 and about the alleged incident of assault. He made a submission that the statement of PW.21 came to be recorded after the long lapse of nearly three months. Hence, he submitted that this also raises doubt in the mind of the Court as to whether really he had sustained injuries in the alleged incident as contended by the prosecution. Learned Amicus Curiae further made a submission that looking to the prosecution material that there was darkness as deposed by the witness, if that is so, how they identified the accused person is also an important fact for which there is no acceptable material placed by the prosecution. It is also his submission that the conduct of the accused is most material.