STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SHIVASHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-Shivashankar, who was a student of First Year B.A. in D.Banumaiah's College, was charged with having committed the murder of one Channegowda, who was also a student of the same institution.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that Vittaldas (PW.18), who was a lecturer in the said college, was teaching economics to the students of 'A' Section of 'the first year B.A. The accused and Channegowda were students in the same class. In the month of January 1976, Vittaldas nominated Channegowda as the representative of the class. This was resented to by the accused. Vittaldas reconciled both the accused and Channegowda and thereafter no untoward incident happened. On 4-3-76, Baskar Rao (PW.21) another lecturer conducted practical class from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. where many students participated. Bhaskar Rao had drawn an India map on the board for the students in order to teach the Subject of enlargement and reduction and by 10-30 a.m. he left the class. It appears that even after Bhaskar Rao left the class, Channegowda was copying what had been written on the board. 'The accused came between the board and Channegowda obstructing the view. Channegowda appears to have taken objection to that and dragged the accused aside. The accused threatened Channegowda saying that he would stab him. Having said so, he went away. On the morning of 5-3-1976, Channegowda along with Venkatesh (PW.12), Manchaiah(PW.13), Basavaraj (PW.15) and Veerabhadragowda(PW.16) went to a hotel near the College and had their breakfast there. They came to the College by about 10 or 10-15 a.m. The accused also came there to go to his class. According to the prosecution, on seeing Channegowda, the accused slapped him stating why he had behaved rudely with him on the previous day. Channegowda in turn slapped him and there was a fight between them. During the course of the fight, according to the prosecution, the accused took out a dagger (MO.3) from his pocket and stabbed Channegowda on the chest and ran away. Channegowda fell down with bleeding injury and while he was being removed to the Hospital, he died. 2. The main case set up on behalf of the accused at the trial was self-defence and the trial Judge addressed himself to this question and and held thai- It would, therefore, necessarily follow that some force must have been used on the accused during the course of the incident," as to tear the pocket of his shirt and rip off the buttons from the said shirt. This circumstance would also, to some extent, go to probabilise the defence version that it is the deceased and his associate, who had first assaulted the accused. In the concluding paragraph of his judgment, he pointed out that- It is difficult to hold that the prosecution has affirmatively and conclusively established that the incident took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution and that accused was the aggressor, who had intentionally and deliberately stabbed the deceased with the dagger MO.3....." In this view, he acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by this decision, the State has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Regarding the incident that happened on 4-3-76, the only witness who has been put forward by the prosecution is Manchaiah (PW.13). Pis evidence is that after the classes were over, the accused asked Channegowda to give him the scale, which, he refused to hand over. When the accused stood between the board and Channegowda, Channegowda objected and dragged him aside. Then, according to him (PW.13), the accused threatened to s'ab Channegowda. Bhaskar Rao (PW.21) who taught the students that morning till 10 a.m. does not say that these three students had atended the class. On the other hand, in cross-examination PW.21 has stated that the accused did not belong to that batch at all. It is therefore clear that the incident of 4-3-76 as spoken to by PW.13 is rather hard to believe.