R.S. Krishna Murthy vs R.S. Krishna Murthy

The State has filed the appeal against the judgment of acquittal of impendent-accused for an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC.

The accused was tried for the following charge:

That on 03.5.2004 at 12.00 midnight when the deceased Manjunath Reddy came to your house situated in Babu Rao Street, Kumbarapeto, Malur Town, and asked you to give your daughter Manjulamma in marriage to him and when he made gaiata you by saying that if he is alive only he would make galata, intentionally murdered him by assaulting on his head and face with a. chopper causing'' bleeding injuries and thereby you have committed an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and within my congnizanee.

On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 19 were examined and documents Exs. P1 to P 32 were marked The material objects produced by the prosecution are marked as M.Os. 1 to 13. The contradictory portions in the statement of P.W. 5 are marked as Ex. D1.

The learned trial Judge an appreciation of evidence and hearing the learned counsel for parties has acquitted the accused of the aforesaid offence.

We have heard the learned Government Advocate for State and Sri. M.R. Nanjunga Gowda, learned Counsel for accused. We have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment.

I order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has relied on the folio wing:

(i) Motive

(ii) Eye witness account of P.W. 4

(iii) absc0ndtance of accused after the incident

(iv) recovery of blood stained chopper on the information volunteered by the accused.

Before adverting to appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to state certain facts, which have not been disputed by the accused.

At the relevant time, deceased Manjunath was working as a Lecturer in a private college at Malur. He was staying in a rented room. Besides working as a Lecturer, he was also giving tuition to students. P.W. 10-Manjula was one such student. The accused had fallen in love with P.W. 10-Manjula and he wanted to marry her. He had informed this matter to his elder brother namely P.W. 2-V. Narayana Reddy and other family members and they had told him that they would perform his marriage with Manjula after performing marriage of one of the sisters of deceased Manjunath. The death of Manjunath occurred on the intervening night of 3/4.5.2004 (near the house of accused), Baburao Street, Malur Town. The death was homicidal in nature. The medical evidence given by P.W. 11-Dr. T. Kemparaj that deceased had suffered multiple incise injuries on his vital parts and death was due to shock and haemorrhage and injuries sustained by accused were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of life has not been introverted.

Now adverting to the evidence adduced by the prosecution in proof of motive, we find that the prosecution has not adduced evidence to prove that before the incident, deceased had approached accused to giws his daughter in marriage to him, The prosecution has relied. on evidence of P.W. 2-V. Narayana Reddy and P.W. 4- Srinavasa Heady, P.W. 5-Shivakumar to prove that accused had fallen in love with Manual-and he had determined to marry her. The evidence: adduced by these witnesses would reveal the state of mind of accused. However, there is no evidence to prove as to what had transpired between deceased and accused. Therefore, the prosecution has feiled to prove that accused had any motive to commit murder of Manjunath

The eye witness to the incident except P.W. 5 ham turned hostile. Therefore, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.W. 5. P.W. 5 has deposed that on the intervening night of 3/4.5.2004, he had taken deceased and dropped him near the house of accused. The deceased knocked the door of accused and insisted accused to give his daughter in marriage to him. The accused got enraged and assaulted the deceased with a chopper and censed his death.

The incriminating evidence given by P.W. 5 in particular P.W. 5 taking deceased to the house of accused; deceased demanding accused to give his daughter in marriage to him and accused assaulting the deceased with a chopper are brought on record as omissions amounting to material contradictions, Above all, evidence of P.W. 5 that he was present at the time of incident has been contradicted by his statement recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure and contradictory portion of his statement is brought on record as Ex. D1. P.W. 5 has admitted that he was a close friend of deceased. If he had witnessed the incident of assault resulting in the death of his close friend, there was no impediment for him to inform the matter to the police. Therefore, the defence version that P.W. 5 was not present at the time of incident and had reached the place of incident on the following day morning appears to be probable.

The prosecution has relied on the circumstance of ascendance of accused. The accused was working as a Lineman in KEB. The prosecution has not collected any documents to prove that accused was absconding; he was not attending to his Office: he had availed leave or that he was unauthorisedly absent. Therefore, the circumstance of ascendance is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution has relied on the evidence of recovery of blood stained chopper on the information volunteered by the accused. The independent witnesses examined to prove the recovery of chopper have not supported the case of prosecution. As per the evidence of the Investigating Officer, accused was arrested on 24.8.2004. the accused gave voluntary statement as per Ex. P19. The accused lead the Investigating. Officer and witnesses to a culvert near Kumcarpete, Bangaloe Malur Road and removed a chopper from a water pipe. As could be seen from the description of chopper, its length is 18 inches. In the circumstances, it is not made clear as m how chopper could have been concealed in a water pipe. Above all, prosecution has not adduced evidence to prove that chopper was stained with blood.

Thus, in view of hostility shown by eye witness and insufficient evidence adduced by prosecution prove motive and abscondance of accused we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused.

The learned Judge has on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted accused of an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. Therefore, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.