T was sitting En fmnt of the shop of one Bomgowda,
<34.
JUDG-fill?
The appellant has cheged hm eomiicfiern” ._
sentence for the offence under Section 302 [PC ‘
by the Scssimxs court. Bflllgakxre Ruza1.a3«iactiF>t. M ” e
2. The facts relevant for ‘V
under: V’ i
The complainant thesgcusaa
(the cousin brother of the sisier of the
accused was cxzmphmazh 1;.
About three the son of the
complainant kiiled and the elder
bmther ‘t}:_1e’ éflcuscd wen: mid to be
responsibh: was a trial’ pend1ng’ slam’ at
them itz’ (hart It is the case of the pmsecuulon
to the vengeance about his
V in the murder of the elm.-2.06
had an eye on the complainant mad the
om-3 family and on 8.7.2003 at about 3.00 pm…
deem S , the elder hmther of the
the fiumefi.jnvesfigefi§2e the inquest on the dead body
o_thers ‘the statements of the witnesses. He went
and in the presence of P”W.9 and
3 stained and unstained soil. He mew the
9f .t.he;seene of oifence as per Ex.P.7 md arrested the
On interrogation, he recorded the veaemexy
Ietatexzixent and the eeeueea led the Pofioe and the attesfing
Cri. A.HQ.;16;[&. 5
the vengeance has caused injuries to Shivaiine
chopper and set the criminal law in motion.
The Head Constable (PW.1G) ‘-ithef’
complaint in Crime No. 1481112003 for
307 [PC and sent the complaint (E)_c.P. the ‘V
to the Magistrate thmugh J1-4).
During the night of that ‘cia y, PW.1O
received an information to the
injuries on the to alter and
include the ‘ {PC and sent the
iaformation—-£*}x._E’:’:}’2.vV’te*3;e. Iv2a’t»g:2′–‘sv cm (PW. 15) took out
of the in the presence of PW.1l mid
other the mahawr Ex.P.3 and at that time
M…
_ V. {Via appellant for the ofiience tmdcr
i;-3. and unacceptable. So also, ii is
complainant taking disadvantage of the motive
i iialsely implicated the mcusod and the evidence of
F” Lfelafives of the deceased being interested cannot be
in law. In the cimmtnsiances, he has sought RM’
302 1190 and W-shaved by the conviction and _
appealhas been prefened. _ _ L. A 3 T
3. We have heard the Learned the
and also the State Public Pxosecntagf. ‘V
our consideration are: ‘ ‘ V ” V.
(1) Whether the jndggncm apfifi
and sentence on
mldfil’ and
(2 *3: %
4. It is_ the learned cmmsel for the
appellanfé’ mat t1;sV~.h adduced during the trial is
he submits that the evkictnm of the eye
<sZ\
'P' an teInp0!*a1 bones and the skull
' Vv was due to shock and haemorrhg as 3
of injuries to the skull and bram tissue. These
gun enumerated in the Postmortem report (Ex.P.13)
_ ("the Doctor (PW. 12) opines that such can M
'V by the chopper (MO. 1). His opinion is at Ex.P.14. The
evidence reveals that the deceased after susta1n1n' ' g the injuries
-7– .’
setting aside the conviction. The State Public _
supported the findings and submits that the .,
is sufieient to ‘prove the guilt of the
all masonable doubt.
5. So fiar as the hom;’ciial cross
examination of PW.12 eerfiaus dispute
in this xegard. many as ‘7
incised injuries. qr: of the head,
over the smulder and the
skuli was and the blood clots were
swn b “injuries on the hem were of
about 3; ems. was comzninuted fiacture of
ml. of blood clots and the Doctor ms
oé.
Cr}. 5.NO.;,1_61(2QQ5
-10-
8. The prosecution relies upon the evidence of Pws-.11.,» 2,
4, 6 and 7 the eye witnesses to the incident. PWJ7 V
hostflc. So, it is the evidence of PWS. 1, 2, ‘4 and 6 M
be looked into. It is the consistent version-of {in me& V
date of the incident, at about 3.00
was sitting in fiont of the of Ir3o;’as fgae
firontyaxti of his house on a
bicycle with a chopper the deceased
on the head and have any
heirs of the uediizphint, he spews
of his pzescnc’:”c.1 ercsencc of his sister-
in-law sujéya (was). Both P’Ws.4 mi 5
support the ver s2ion’ PW.5 has not seen the
incident pf–va;3sa1’1 it,V..l;1e”s1tates 55 his evidence that he was inside
‘H'(.V’tfi.’f1 the tea and heard the galata and
, the deceased and the people shoutglng
L S . He states that by the
he out, the accused had fled away from the spot.
is not an eye WitI18$S, his evxi’ ence would be
V” .:._§{>hsifiZexed as the evidence of res gestac. His presence near the
q/
Qg. A.§O. _1_ £61 [£33
-11-
spot finds place in the complaint Ex.P.1. His house injjlgnst
opposite to the bunk shop of Borcgowda. Them .,
unnatural in the cvidmoe of P’W.5 about what V’
before the Court. His evidence is V’
of PWs.1 and 2. It is relevant to not;é«’thé_it
evidence states that when he
the lands and when he the
accused alighting fiom and then
suddenly assaulting 31¢ on the head
and neck. Thgqgi.’ to tm deceased,
rest of the except that
they are 1)¢;:;sons who weave passing
through mgA35,¢n¢ at the time of am incident.
The scm:t*2:1yAof”4{ia§VAA¢vi.dc:fi££:c .§.)f Pws.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 reveals
thi§£.1:cifiaieti9¢ is as neganis the part played by
tlii-3 the assault and running away from the
— incident. There is not};n:ng’ to d1sbe’ iicvc the
sflvidcnce (“if 1-these: witnesses and looking to theiw mm
except suggesting that they are dcposing falsely,
” ngmenax is elicited to discard the cvidmcc of these
%/\
Cri. A.NO. 116112005
– 12 –
witnesses. Except that PW}? has turned hostile the
pmsecution, we are of the consiciexed opinion that
of these eye witnesses and that of P’W.5 is aoceptfinb1e,e:VV§§-e
consistent and cogent.
9. The spot mahazar
of occurrence is near to the of and V
P’W.4. Furthermore, MOe;2A_ the spot
and the FSL stains in the
sari}. The cho3)i>eej’— V the Police under the
maham-Ve;;x;p., “of”t1;e accused. Though this
itself is 7._not 2-aujfit ” :su..sta1n’ the conviction, the
circumstances, version of the prosecution and
, .t}:1e ot’t11ne”ej;’:eV__wfi.1;:1essee. The pxese-nee of blood stains
e1oTt3t:es«vt11e accused and that of the deceased reveal
Oligill. The recovery of the shjxt at
V Vt the ine’ianeeV.of:tI1e accused has been proved satisfactorily finm
H on of the Investigating Otficer. 80 taking into
4″‘_ee:eeitieretion the circumstances stated above and the
lqevitience of eye Witnesses and that of PW.E$, there is ample
inaterial on record to prove that the aeeuseci with an intention
A
Section IPC. V ”
Crl. M10. 1161gm§
-13-
to cause the death of the deceasad
choppcr(MO.1) and that uitimatcly, demjfisccl’
to the said injuries on the same V’
intention of the accuseci is
sustained by the deoeasgd ofi” v§i§a1 The
appcnantf accused has notufl to waxrant
the interference. V “we answer the
Point No.1 in tyne the following:
The –con”fi1mmg’ the conviction and
sentence Court for the offence under
Sd/-Z»
Iudgé
Sd/-5
Jada?