HARAMANT LAXMAPPA KUKKADI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Sessions Judge concluded that the child Pandappa and Yallappa, the two deceased met with homicidal death. He also held that P.Ws 3,4,6,7,8,9 and 11 sustained injuries. He, however, doubted the ability of the witnesses to identify the accused as the occurrence took place during darkness and that since the witness were interested, their evidence did not inspire confidence and accordingly acquitted the accused except A -It. He, however, held A -II guilty for causing the death of the child. The High Court, while reversing the order of acquittal, held that the learned Sessions Judge grossly erred in rejecting the evidence of the injured eye -witnesses merely on the ground that they are interested and that they could not have identified the accused.

(2.) WE have gone through the judgment of the Sessions Court and the reasons given by him are absolutely unsound and the view taken by him is unreasonable. P.Ws 3 to 9 and 11 were injured and their presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. P.W.9, among them, received fairly serious injuries. All the particulars are mentioned in the FIR. The injuries on these witnesses as well as on the two deceased persons would go to show that quite a number of accused persons participated in the attack. In addition to that circumstantial evidence namely the observation report of the scene of occurrence and recoveries also corroborate the evidence of the injured eye -witnesses. We have gone through the evidence of each of these injured witnesses. They have given the details of the occurrence and also clearly named the assailants. The High Court has convicted mostly such of those accused to whom specific overt acts were attributed and to that extent corroborated by the medical evidence. Therefore there is overwhelming evidence establishing the participation of these accused who are figuring as appellants before us.

(3.) P .W.10 did not find any other injury. As a matter of fact he clarified it in cross -examination by stating that these are the only two injuries which he noticed. He also opined that these injuries could have been caused only by a blunt weapon. As already noted, Yallappa died two days later and P.W.13, who conducted the post -mortem, also found that the two injuries were on the head resulting in fissured fracture of the skull. He, however, noticed on internal examination fracture of some ribs for which there were no corresponding external injuries. He opined that it could be due to a fall or some pressure being applied. The evidence of the direct witnesses is to the effect that A -1, A -3 and A -10 beat the deceased with sticks. But the Doctor found only two injuries on the head and Yallappa died two days later. If really the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder, one would naturally expect such of those accused who were armed with deadly weapons to use them. The nature of the two lacerated injuries found also would show that the assailants did not use much force or cause much violence. As a matter of fact, a number of injuries were found on the eye -witnesses but on deceased Yallappa on whom there were only two lacerated wounds. The common object of the unlawful assembly has to be inferred from the membership, the weapons used and the nature of the injuries as well as other surrounding circumstances.