Case: State of Karnataka Vs. Panchakshari Gurupadayya Hiramath

2. According to the prosecution, there was a dispute between the deceased and his brother regarding certain lands in the village and the dispute was settled. However, about 15 days prior to the incident the deceased sent for the accused who is his brothers son when he heard that he was alienating the land which fell to the share of his brother. In that context there was a quarrel between them. Two or three days later, when the deceased sent the labourers to remove the weeds on the said land the accused objected and turned them away. The deceased then went to the field along with his son and questioned the accused for doing so. There again, a quarrel ensued. The deceased was in the habit of going for a walk along with his friend Sadashiv PW3 who was the Secretary of local Cooperative Society during night time and returning home by about 10.30 p.m. They used to sit on a katta in Jain Basti and chit chat. On the crucial night i.e. 25.4.1993, as usual, the deceased and Sadashiv went for a walk but the deceased did not return till 10.30 p.m. PW1 who was waiting for his father was apprehensive of the safety of his father and he along with PW 4 went along the road to find his father. They noticed the deceased and PW3 on the road opposite to the house of Balu Gondali where there was an electric light. At that juncture, the accused came from another road suddenly and attacked the deceased with a sickle on several parts of his body. After the assault, the accused went away from the scene. PWs. 1, 3 and 4 carried the victim upto the house of one Shankar Joshi which is in the vicinity of the house of deceased and he was placed on the katta of Shankar Joshis house. Thereafter, he was taken in a jeep to the dispensary at Ugarkhurd. The doctor advised them to take the injured to a major hospital at Miraj. On the way to Miraj, the deceased succumbed to the injuries at about 0.30 hrs. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged at the police station at Kagwad by the son of deceasedP.W.1 which led to investigation and filing of charge sheet. PW7 who held theexamination over the dead body found three incised injuries and one wound over the left little finger. The 4th injury proved to be fatal, according to PW7. The description of the injury is as7 cm x 2 cm incised wound over the anterior aspect of the left ear and neck. Extending from superior aspect of pinna of ear downwards and medially involving external meatus upto below the angle of mandible deeply involving sternocleoidmastoid muscle parotid gland, fascial nerve, internal jugular vein, external jugular, vein carzotid artery, crophar with chopped out bone of angle of mandible and mastoid process of 1 cm longdoctor opined that the cause of death was shock and haemmorage caused due to the injury to left carotid vessels mentioned. The injury No.4 was serious in nature and sufficient to cause death. PW7 further stated that the injuries could have been caused by a sickle.3. The learned trial Judge placed heavy reliance on the evidence of PW3. However, the trial Court disbelieved the version of PWs 1 and 4 who claimed to byto the incident. The learned trial Judge also disbelieved the discovery of sickle at the instance of the accused and the seizure of blood stained clothes of the deceased. The High Court while agreeing with the trial Court that the version of PWs 1 and 4 cannot be accepted, doubted the version of PW3 on the ground that prosecution has not explained certain important aspects of the case. We shall now proceed to discuss whether the lacunae pointed out by the High Court are fatal to the prosecution case.

Court's reasoning:
4. In our view, the doubt entertained by the High Court in this behalf is not a reasonable doubt but a far fetched one. As the scene of offence as well as the house of Shankar Joshi where the victims body was laid was too close to the said houses, there was every possibility of someone who touched or carried the deceased coming into contact with blood and thereafter touching the walls. From the mere fact that no one was able to pinpoint the particular person who rubbed his hands on the adjacent walls, it cannot be inferred that the entire prosecution case falls to the ground. In fact it isthe independent witness who shows the blood stained marks on the walls of Wagwades and Thamanapattas houses to the investigating officer. If PW3 wanted to give a distorted version of the incident, he would have refrained from showing those blood stained marks to the police officers. In any case, the mere existence of few blood marks on the walls in close proximity to the scene of offence does not demolish the prosecution case.We have gone through the deposition of PW3, who is an independent witness. He would not like to involve the brother of the deceased wantonly. There are no material contradictions or inherent improbabilities in the evidence of PW3. The trial court had rightly believed the evidence, but, the High Court was not inclined to place reliance on his evidence mainly in the light of two doubtful features pointed out by the High Court. We have already adverted to them and come to the inevitable conclusion that they do not obliterate the clear account of thenamely, PW3. The judgment under appeal cannot, therefore, be sustained.