Kumar vs State of Karnataka

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.

The judgment and order of conviction dated 26.02.2011 passed by the III Fast Track Court, Mysore, in Sessions Case No. 109/2010 is called in question in this appeal by the convicted accused.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that, at about 9 p.m. on 06.01.2010, when the deceased Madappa was proceeding along with his brother Sumathi @ Javarappa-PW3 near Karikal Circle, Rammanahalli Village, Mysore Taluk, Mysore District, the accused all of a sudden came with knife M.O. 1 and threatened the deceased by asking money for consuming alcohol. The deceased did not accede to the request of the accused; the accused suddenly stabbed on the chest of the deceased, consequent upon which, the deceased collapsed on the spot, inasmuch as the heart was ruptured to maximum extent. PW1, the brother of the deceased who was also standing near a bakery in the very Circle drinking tea, saw the incident and called the Mysore South Police Station and gave information over phone. Immediately, PW15, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Mysore South Police Station rushed to the spot, wherein he recorded the statement of PW1, the brother of the deceased as per Ex. P1. Based on Ex. P1, Crime No. 4/2010 came to be registered in Mysore South Police Station for offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC at about 11.30 p.m. on 06.01.2010. After completion of investigation PW17 Inspector of Police laid the chargesheet.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution have recorded the evidence of 17 witnesses and got marked 13 documents and 7 material objects. On behalf of the defence, no witness is examined. The Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record convicted the accused for the offences under Section 302 of IPC.

Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the accused appears to be innocent; there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit any crime; the material on record is not sufficient to conclude that there was sufficient light for the witnesses to see the incident; the presence of the eye witnesses cannot be believed, inasmuch as they are chance witnesses; though the accused is arrested on 09.01.2010, the recovery pancha has deposed that the police, in the presence of the panchas recovered the knife from the accused on 07.01.2010; the appreciation of evidence by the Court below is improper and incorrect and consequently, the conclusion reached by the Trial Court is not correct.

Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned HCGP argued in support of the judgment of the Court below.

PWs. 1 to 4 are the eye witnesses to the incident. Among them, PWs. 1 and 3 are the brothers of the deceased. PW5 came to the spot immediately after the incident. PW6 is a witness for recovery panchanama Ex. P2, under which M.O. 1 knife is recovered. PW7 is witness for inquest panchanama Ex. P8.

PW8 is the Asst. Executive Engineer, who has deposed that there was electricity supply in the Village during the relevant point of time. He has issued the certificate as per Ex. P3. PW9 is the Doctor. He conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. According to him, death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the stab injury of the heart and lung caused by sharp cutting edged weapon. Post mortem report is at Ex. P4.

PW10 is the mahazar witness. Under the very mahazar M.Os. 6 and 7 were seized.

PW11 is the Panchayat Development Officer. He has deposed that electricity bulb was in existence near the place of incident during the relevant point of time. Ex. P5 is the certificate confirming about the presence of street light.

PWs. 12, 13 and 14 are the Police Constables and Head Constable respectively, who have participated in the course of investigation during the relevant point of time. Among them, PW14 was the Station House Officer during the relevant point of time. He registered the complaint and issued FIR as per Ex. P6.

As aforementioned PW15 is the Sub-Inspector of Police. He recorded the First Information Report at the spot as per Ex. P1. He apprehended the accused after three days i.e., on 09.01.2010.

PW16 is the Head Constable who also participated during the course of investigation.

PW17 is the Investigating Officer. He laid the charge sheet after completion of investigation.

The case of the prosecution mainly rests on the evidence of the eye witnesses, inasmuch as PWs. 1 to 4. It is needless to observe that if the case rests on the eye-witnesses'' version and their version is believable, then the other circumstances such as motive etc., may not be of much importance.

As aforementioned, the first information came to be lodged by PW1 as per Ex. P1. The incident has taken place at about 9.30 p.m. near Karikal Circle of Rammanahalli Village, Mysore. Near the place of incident, there are 3-4 bakeries. The said Circle appears to be a busy Circle. As can be gathered from the evidence on record, number of persons were standing in the Circle during the relevant point of time. PW1 was also standing near a Bakery drinking tea. At that point of time, the deceased Madappa and PW3 Sumathi @ Javarappa, were going together towards their house. The accused arrived at the scene and asked for money from the deceased; however the deceased negatived the said request of the deceased; being enraged, the accused took out the knife and stabbed on the chest of the deceased. Immediately thereafter, PW1 informed the Mysore South Police Station over phone; PW15 being the Sub-Inspector of Police rushed to the spot and after seeing the dead body, he took the complaint lodged by PW1 and sent the same to the Police Station. The complaint is registered at about 11.30 p.m.

It is not in dispute that the Police Station is situated about 6 kms. from the scene of offence. Hence, it is clear that the complaint is lodged and the same is registered without any loss of time. There is no scope for concoction at all. There is absolutely no reason as to why PW1 should tell falsehood against the accused, if the accused is really innocent.

It is relevant to note that there is sole accused in this case. Normally, the eye witnesses would not spare the real culprit and would not try to implicate any other person leaving the real culprit. Though PW1 is cross-examined at length, nothing worth is elicited by the defence. Even in the cross-examination, PW1 has reiterated that the offence has taken place at 9.30 p.m. and it was the accused who committed murder by using knife.

The evidence of PW1 fully supports the case of the prosecution. His evidence is in consonance with the contents found in Ex. P1, based on which crime is registered.

The evidence of PW1 is supported by evidence of PWs. 3 and 4, who are the eye witnesses to the incident. Of them, PWs. 2 and 4 are independent eye witnesses. They are neither related to the accused nor to the deceased. So also there is nothing on record to show that they have any ill-will against the accused.

PW3 is the brother of the deceased. He was accompanying the deceased during the relevant point of time.

All these three eye witnesses have also deposed consistently and cogently that the accused committed murder of the deceased by stabbing on the chest of the deceased with knife. The death was instantaneous. It is also deposed by all the eye witnesses that when the eye witnesses started coming to the scene to help the injured Madappa, who had fallen to the ground, the accused ran away from the scene with blood stained knife.

We find that the evidence of all four eye witnesses is consistent, cogent and reliable. Not even a single contradictory version is found in the evidence of these witnesses. All the relevant suggestions put by the defence are denied by these witnesses. We find that the versions of these witnesses are highly reliable and their presence cannot be doubted. Admittedly, the incident has taken place in the Circle, where number of shops including 3 to 4 bakeries were existing. Therefore, the eye witnesses cannot be said to be chance witnesses, particularly when the complaint is lodged immediately after the incident and complaint discloses the names of all the four eye-witnesses specifically.

The case of the prosecution is further supported by the evidence of PW8 the Assistant Executive Engineer, of Electricity Corporation. PW8 has specified that on 06.01.2010, there was electricity flow in Rammanahalli Village. He has also issued a certificate as per Ex. P3. Ex. P3 further specifies that there was flow of electricity during the relevant point of time in the Village.

The evidence of PW8 is supported by the evidence of PW11 Panchayat Development Officer of Rammanahalli Gram Panchayat. He has also deposed in support of his certificate Ex. P5 to the effect that the electricity bulb was fixed to the street light situated near the scene of offence. A suggestion is put to PW11 that the Electricity bulb was burnt. Such suggestion is denied by PW11.

Thus it is clear that there was sufficient light near the scene of offence and consequently, the eye witnesses were able to see the incident meticulously. Even otherwise, Rammanahalli is a small Village. It is not uncommon to know the names of each of the Villagers in such small Villages. All the four eye witnesses were knowing the accused. Therefore, their version cannot be doubted on any score.

The postmortem report Ex. P4 and the evidence of the Doctor PW9 make it clear that the deceased had suffered two stab wounds on the chest. The Doctor has opined that the death is due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of stab injury to the heart and lung caused by sharp cutting edged weapon. Thus virtually the evidence of the Doctor coupled with the post mortem report fully supports the case of the prosecution that the accused committed murder by using a sharp cutting weapon i.e., knife M.O. 1.

The case of the prosecution is further supported by the Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex. P13. Number of articles including the knife and clothes of the deceased were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The report Ex. P13 reveals that all the important articles including the knife and the clothes of the deceased which were stained with ''O'' group human blood, which means the deceased had got X)'' blood group and the blood on the knife was also stained with X)'' blood group.

The case of the prosecution is further supported by the evidence of PW6, the recovery mahazar witness and the Investigating Officer pertaining to recovery of the knife. It is no doubt true that PW6 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that the police seized the knife on 07.01.2010. It is also not in dispute that the accused has been arrested on 09.01.2010 and the recovery panchanama is made on the very day.

On the basis of the same, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the recovery of knife is unbelievable, inasmuch as the same is concocted. Such submission cannot be accepted. Merely because of the wrong mentioning of date of recovery in the examination-in-chief of PW6 as V. instead of ''9'', the case of the prosecution in respect of the recovery cannot be disbelieved. The recovery panchanama clearly discloses that the same is done on 09.01.2010 and under the said panchanama, the knife is recovered.

PW6 is the recovery mahazar witness. The Investigating Officer, who is the public servant and who does not have any grudge against the accused, has clarified that the accused is arrested on 9.1.2010 and the recovery panchanama was made on the very day after recovering the knife-MO. No. 1. In our considered opinion, the trial Court is justified in believing the aspect of recovery also.

Be that as it may, even if the recovery is taken as suspicious, the same would not discredit the case of the prosecution, inasmuch as the prosecution case mainly based on the ocular testimony of the eye witnesses. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. Even on reconsideration of the material on record, we find that the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused. The reasons assigned and the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are just and proper.

The accused has come to the spot fully prepared. He has used the sharp cutting weapon namely knife for the commission of offence. He has chosen a vital part for commission of the murder. The death was instantaneous. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no intention on the part of the accused. Moreover, there is no provocation at all by anybody, muchless by the deceased. The accused himself had asked for money for consuming liquor, which request was turned down by the deceased. Immediately, thereafter, the accused stabbed Madappa on the chest. It need not be observed that the motive is always hidden, which will be only in the mind of the accused. Only the accused would be the better person to know as to what was the motive for the commission of the offence. Even otherwise, we do not find any ground to take leniency in favour of the accused by convicting him for the lesser offence.

Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.

We place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Sri B.S. Prasad, learned amicus curiae. Hence, registry is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the learned amicus curiae as honorarium.