PALEKANDA KARUMBAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the accused in Sessions case No. 30/83 on the file of the Sessions Judge,. Kodagu, Madikeri. He was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of deceased - K.C. Chengappa alias Nani by shooting him with the revolver - M.O.1. As the accused denied the commission of the said offence, P.Ws. 1 to 15 were examined and Ex.P. 1 to 18 and M.Os. 1 to 18 were produced on behalf of the prosecution. Exhibit D : was got marked for the accused during the cross-examination of P.W. 4. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The defence of the accused was one of total denial.

(2.) In his written statement filed under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused stated inter-alia, that the land from which bamboo shoots were cut does not belong to him and so he had no reason to object to anybody cutting them; that on 25.7.1983 he worked in his paddy field repairing the breaches in the bunds and was resting in the afternoon; that as usual he left his house at 5.00 p.m. and reached the Victoria club at Virajpet at 6.00 p.m.; that at about 6.30 p.m. a Constable went to the club and informed him to meet the Circle Inspector; that when he reached the police station, the Circle Inspector informed him that a dead body with a gun shot wound was lying adjacent to his land; that he would like to make a general check of the weapon held by him and others in the vicinity; that he offered to hand over his weapon and he handed over his revolver and six live cartridges after going to his house in the police jeep; that thereafter the Circle Inspector informed him that he was under arrest ; and that he had no reason whatsoever to shoot the deceased as he was in cordial terms with the deceased.

(3.) Accepting the prosecution evidence the learned Trial Judge held him guilty for causing the death of the deceased by shooting him with the revolver, by his judgment dated 15.9.1984. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge, questioned the accused as regards the sentence stating that he had convicted him under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter on the same day, the learned Trial Judge, proceeded to consider that the offence committed by the accused was one under Section 304 Part -II IPC. Regard being had to the facts that there was an altercation between the accused and the deceased; that there was no malice; that there was no pre-meditation ; that their meeting was a chance meeting : that the cause of quarrel though trivial was just sudden and in view of the decision in State of Karnataka v Kamalaksha (1978 Cr. L.J.p. 290) (2) Jagtar Singh v State of Punjab (1983 Crl. L.J. p. 852) and in view of the age, health of the accused and the circumstances in which the offence had been committed, he imposed a sentence of R.I. for 5 years on him. Hence, this appeal by the accused against the said convection and sentence through the Superintendent of Central Jail, Mysore.