PUTTA CHAMAIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Jail appeal.

(2.) THE facts of this case are both distressing and gruesome. They are most distressing because the prosecution contends that the accused assaulted the deceased Chamaiah with a knife-M. O. 1 and that he virtually sat on the chest of the deceased and cut his throat, the reason for all this being a petty loan of Rs. 100/ -. The wife of the deceased P. W. 1 Mahadevamma had contended that half the loan amount had earlier been repaid and had even offered to pay the balance amount despite which the incident took place. The prosecution alleges that it was a ruthless and brutal assault virtually because the poverty stricken Chamaiah was unable to repay that paltry amount. The incident took place on 9-4-1992 at about 1. 15 p. m. at Honnur village. The incident is alleged to have been witnessed by the wife P. W. 1 Mahadevamma, the son P. W. 6 Ningaraju and a neighbour P. W. 2 Mahadevaiah all of whom claim to be eye-witnesses and who have been examined by the prosecution. The weapon M. O. 1 knife in question was recovered and on completion of the investigation, the accused was put on trial for an offence under S. 302, IPC. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence u/s. 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for life but this is one of the cases in which the trial Court has imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/- which is a slightly unusual order, but in our considered view one that was most necessary and deserving in the special facts of this case. The trial Court has directed that in default of payment of fine, the accused to undergo R. I. for four years and we propose to make certain observations with regard to the last part of the order. The accused has been in custody and has preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence. The accused has not been in a position to make arrangements for a legal defence. This Court has appointed learned Advocate Mr. Y. S. Shivaprasad to appear as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant. We have heard the appellant's learned Advocate and the learned Addl. S. P. P. Sri B. V. Pinto on merits.

(3.) THE appellant's learned Advocate Mr. Shivaprasad has taken us through the record of the case and the evidence in particular. While dealing with the evidence of the three eye-witnesses to which we shall make reference, his principal challenge has been that if one were to carefully scrutinise from the record the exact spot where the incident has taken place, that it would not have been physically possible for the three eye-witnesses to have actually seen what had happened. In this regard, he has referred to certain stray admissions particularly in cross-examination to the effect that if a person were to stand on a particular spot such as inside the houses of these people, that the place of incident would not be readily visible. We have carefully considered this argument and re-examined the record for purposes of ascertaining whether it requires to be upheld and we do find that the argument is basically a technical one in so far as the over all evidence of the three eye-witnesses is sufficient to indicate that they were in sufficient proximity and within visible distance of the incident and that they were not at any place from where it could not have been seen. The argument is more a hypothesis than a reality and therefore cannot be used for purposes of discrediting the evidence of these three witnesses.