PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a back stabbing case in the literal sense of the term because the appellant before us is alleged to have inflicted four stab injuries on the back of the deceased with a knife at about 1.30 p.m. on 17-12-1993. The prosecution alleges that the deceased is supposed to have informed the wife of the accused some time earlier that the deceased and his wife had seen the accused and his unmarried sister-in-law standing near Shantala Talkies at Honnali. There is no serious motive that is attributed or for that matter established and it is alleged that on the date in question, the village market was taking place and that P.W. 8-Basappa who is a coconut vendor was doing his business near one of the shops. The accused purchased a coconut from Basappa and consumed it at which time the deceased arrived there and similarly bought a coconut and drank it. When the deceased was leaving, the accused is alleged to have stabbed him four times on the back as a result of which the deceased fell down. An attempt was made by P.W. 7-Krishnamurthy to give him some water but the deceased died on the spot. The medical evidence indicates that injury Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were relatively superficial whereas injury No. 2 had pierced the thoracic cavity and punctured the lung which caused the immediate death of the deceased. The accused was apprehended on the following day and it is alleged that pursuant to a statement madevby him, that the weapon in question was recovered which is M.O. 14. The accused was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and was tried by the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in S.C. No. 25 of 1994. At the conclusion of the trial, by judgment and order dated 20-9-1995 the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302, IPC and imposed on him a sentence of R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default R.I. for three months. The present appeal is directed against this conviction and sentence.

(2.) At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Pasha, learned Counsel who represents the appellant has seriously assailed the conviction which is to a large extent based on the evidence of the solitary eye witness P.W. 8-Basappa. He has taken us through the evidence in question and his contention is that even though Basappa may have been doing business at that spot, that he could not have seen the actual incident and that it is the Police who have virtually put words into his mouth. Also, the submission canvassed is that the quality of the evidence is weak because Basappa is not very precise with regard to material particulars and it is therefore submitted that it would be highly dangerous to rely on the evidence of a solitary witness of this caliber for purposes of sustaining the conviction. We need to record here that Basappa is admittedly a coconut vendor coming from the same village as the accused and the deceased. He knows both of them and therefore, there is no difficulty of identification. His presence cannot really be disputed and since the body was found in the immediate vicinity of where he was doing business, and more so since both the accused and the deceased had purchased coconuts from him virtually minutes before the incident, it would be impossible to discredit his evidence. Nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the plea that he would falsely implicate the accused and on an overall view of his evidence, we find that it is quite reliable and trustworthy and furthermore that it is fully supported by the other evidence on record particularly P.Ws. 1 and 7 and most importantly the medical evidence. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that this is one more case where the principle that has to be applied is that the quality of the evidence is what matters and not the quantity. It may be that in certain instances the rule of prudence would dictate that the Court would not base a conviction on a solitary piece of evidence but this trial is one where we do have sufficient material to support the evidence of P.W. 8-Basappa. This comes in the form of P.Ws. 1 and 8 both of whom came to the scene almost immediately after the incident and their evidence completely falls in line with that of Basappa. Also, the name of the assailant i.e., the accused has emerged at that very point of time and is reflected in the FIR that was lodged by the PC-P.W. 1. It is in this background that we are of the view that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are liable to be upheld in so far as the prosecution has fully established that it was the accused who wielded a knife and was responsible for the death of the deceased.

(3.) The main thrust of Mr. Pasha's argument then shifted to his alternate submission which was to the effect that there are certain aspects of the case which would justify a conviction on a lesser charge of Section 304, Part II, IPC. In this regard, Mr. Pasha submitted that the prosecution case taken at its highest would indicate that the accused and the deceased happened to land at the same place i.e., the coconut stall of Basappa and even if it was by coincidence, for a short while, during which time both of them were standing there, there was no quarrel or fight either verbal or physical nor did they even talk to each other. Mr. Pasha vehemently contended that this is a circumstance in favour of the accused because even assuming that he did attack the deceased shortly thereafter that he still inflicted the injuries on the rear part of the body and not on the front of the body. Mr. Pasha's entire effort was to submit before us that the accused at the highest wanted to cause the deceased an injury and Mr. Pasha was at pains to emphasise that this was all that the accused had intended to do. He submitted that in this background, even if injury No. 2 proved to be a fatal one that the Court will have to accept the position that there was no intention to cause death. The learned State Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this submission and he relied heavily on the fact that the accused had come armed withan a knife which indicates premeditation. He also submitted that there was no need or justification for the accused who is a Tailor by profession to be carrying a knife at the village market and that this clearly indicates that he was after the accused with an intention of using that knife and he submitted .that if one were to consider the type of weapon that was used, that there could be no doubt about the fact that the intention was to kill and nothing less than that. Another factor on which the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor placed heavy reliance was the fact that the accused dealt as many as four blows and he took us very carefully through the medical evidence and the evidence of the doctor and he submitted that where a 6" deep injury has been inflicted, that the force of the injury alone is sufficient to clearly indicate intention to kill and that Section 302, IPC would clearly be attracted.