Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Surendra Alias Sony Alias Anantha ... on 2 June, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996(1)ALT(CRI)83, 1995CRILJ3824, ILR1995KAR2022, 1995(3)KARLJ622
Author: M.B. Vishwanath
Bench: M.B. Vishwanath
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment dated 13-5-1993 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, D.K. in SC No. 44/91 acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under S. 302, IPC.
2. We have heard the learned Additional Government Pleader, Sri Rajagopal, and the learned counsel for the respondent, Sri R. B. Deshpande, and perused the records of the case.
3. The case of the prosecution is as follows :
On 23-2-1991 at about 11 p.m. the accused picked up quarrel with deceased Shanmuga at Mallika Jewellers shop situated in Gowri Mutt Road in Mangalore City. At that time PW-1 Dharmaraj, who was proceeding in his auto-rickshaw towards his house came near the spot. Accused told the said Shanmuga that he would send Kadle People referring to deceased Shanmuga. PW-1 separated the accused and the deceased. PW-2 M. R. Ramesh, who was running a moving petty shop of Amlet also came there. CW-2 also came there. Accused ran towards his nearby house and returned with a knife in his hand and stabbed a number of times on the left and right side chest of Shanmuga. PW-3 Vamanna Shetty shifted the injured from the spot to the hospital in his auto rikshaw and PW-1 gave his complaint, which is registered by the Bunder Police Station as per Ex. P1. The police started investigation of the case and after investigation was completed, filed a charge-sheet against the accused.
4. The prosecution relied mainly upon the evidence of PW-1 and 2, CW-2 Krishna Maniyani, though cited as a charge-sheet witness, he was given up as he was won over by the accused. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 on the ground that they are related to each other and that their evidence was not safe to be acted upon. It has also disbelieved the apprehension of the accused with blood-stained knife and clothes in the bus-stand around about 7 p.m. on 24-2-1991 on the ground that it looks highly improbable that a person who had committed such a hienous offence, should be found in a bus-stand with incriminating articles with him.
5. The case of the prosecution is that the accused quarrelled with the deceased and called him Kadle and after being separated from the deceased by PW-1, went to his house and came back with a knife and stabbed the deceased. The evidence does not disclose any compelling motive on the part of the accused to commit the murder. The trial Court has also held that there is no such compelling motive on the part of the accused to commit a murder. But when there are eye-witnesses to the commission of the offence by the accused, existence or non-existence of the motive, sufficiency or insufficiency of the motive is not a ground to reject the prosecution case, provided the evidence of the eye-witnesses and other pieces of evidence are sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court in the ruling has held as follows :
"The Prosecution is not bound to prove motive of any offence in a criminal case, in as much as motive is known only to the perpetrator of the crime and may not be known to others."
It is also well settled principle of law that when there is satisfactory evidence to connect the accused with the offence alleged against him, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown over-board merely on the ground the motive is not proved. In , the Supreme Court has held as follows :
"It is not a sine qua for the success of the prosecution that the motive must be proved. So long as the other evidence remains convincing and is not open to reasonable doubt, conviction may well be based on it."
The trial Court has observed in para 10 of its judgment as follows :
"It is to be noted here before discussing the evidence of the witnesses that to commit heinous offence of murder of a person, the assailant must have some motive and hatred against the person whom he murder."
Further referring to the evidence of PW-15, the younger brother of deceased Shanmuga, it is held that there is no ill will and there were no quarrels between the accused and the deceased prior to the incidence. The approach of the trial Court is clearly wrong. The existence of the motive is not sine qua non for the success of the prosecution case. Many a times, motive may be known only to the accused and not to others. If there are other pieces of evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused, the Court will not be justified in rejecting the case of the prosecution merely on the ground that there is no material as to what was the motive for the accused to commit a murder. The approach of the trial Court, in this regard, is totally wrong. The prosecution has relied on PWs. 1 and 2. CW-2 Krishna Maniyani has been given up as won over by the accused. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 has been disbelieved by the trial Court on the ground that the evidence is contradictory to each other. PW-1, who is the complainant, also has stated that on 23-2-1991 at about 11 p.m. while he was returning with his auto-rikshaw to his home on his way, that is, Gowri Mutt Road, he noticed the accused and deceased Shanmuga quarrelling in front of Mallika Jewellers shop and the accused was telling that he would send the Kadle People referring to deceased Shanmuga. He has further stated that the accused so telling the deceased asked if he stabbed Shanmuga with knife who was going to ask him. It is further the evidence of PW-1 that he stopped the auto-rikshaw about 15 feet away from the said Jewellers shop and went to them and separated the accused and deceased and advised them to go to their respective houses and that deceased Shanmuga went to the Katta of Mallika Jewellers shop and sat there and that the accused ran to his house and in about two minutes returned with knife and stabbed Shanmuga on right and left side of the chest and below abdomen etc., PW-2 has also been examined as another eye-witness and he has stated in his evidence that he heard the shouting voice of the accused saying that he would teach a lesson to the Kadle people and he was holding in his hand a knife and after telling that the Kadle people have become arrogant after earning money and coming to Mangalore stabbed Shanmuga with the knife in his hand. The trial Court has disbelieved PW-2 on the ground that PW-1 has stated that CW-2 and PW-2 came to the spot only after the accused ran away from the spot with the weapon. This finding of the trial Judge is wrong because he has not taken into consideration the entire evidence of PW. 1. In the cross-examination this point has been clarified by the witness. He has stated as follows :
"PW-2 and Krishna Maniyani came to the spot when the accused was stabbing the deceased Shanmuga".
So PW-1 has clarified in his evidence on being questioned by the defence itself that PW-2 and Krishna Maniyani came to the spot when the accused stabbing Shanmuga. Therefore, the trial Court was wrong in drawing an inference that PW-2 and CW-2 came to the spot after the incident. The trial Court has disbelieved PW-2 on the ground that he did not speak about the earlier quarrel between the deceased and the accused prior to the accused running to his house and coming to the spot and stabbing the deceased. Here also the trial Court fell in error in not properly appreciating the evidence of PW-1. From the evidence of PW-1 it is clear that PW-2 and Krishna Maniani came to the spot when the accused was stabbing deceased Shanmuga. When the two, witnesses had come to the spot at that juncture, they could not have seen the earlier quarrel between the accused and the deceased preceding this incidence. The evidence of PW-2 has also been disbelieved by the trial Court on the ground that PW-2 has stated that the accused was holding knife and said that Kadle people have bcome arrogant after earning money and after coming to Bangalore, but PW-1 does not say that the accused used any such words at the time of stabbing the deceased. PW-1 does not say that the accused uttered those words when he was stabbing the deceased. There appears to be some contradictions in the evidence of PWs-1 & 2 on this aspect of the incident. But that cannot be said to be such a major contradiction so as to go to the very root of the case. But there is no contradiction in the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 so far as identification of the accused and his stabbing the deceased with the knife is concerned. PW-2 has stated in his evidence that there was electric light on the spot. Accused was not an unknown person either to PW-1 or PW-2. When the incident had taken place at a spot where there was an electric light, the identification of the assailant by the witnesses who was not unknown to them before the incident cannot be doubted. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that PW-1 has admitted that he has not stated before the police that the accused went to his house and brought the knife and thereafter stabbed the deceased. Ex. P1 is the complaint given by PW-1. In the complaint he has stated this aspect of the case. Therefore, it cannot be taken as a substantial omission in the evidence of PW-1. PW-1 has admitted that he and PW-2 are related to the deceased. Being related to the deceased cannot be a ground for the court to reject their evidence. The court will have to assess the evidence whether it is of related, interested or partisan witnesses carefully and cautiously. But it cannot throw over-board the evidence of such witnesses merely because they are interested, related or partisan witnesses. There is no material contradiction as such between the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2. The trial Court has not properly assessed the evidence of these two witnesses.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the conduct of PW-1 in not shifting the injured immediately to the hospital also appears to be unnatural and suspicious. There is no standard way in which all the persons will act in a similar situation. How a person will act in a particular situation will depend upon his mental make up, strength of his nerves, his relation with the deceased and the gravity of the situation. PW-1 has stated that after the incident, he went near the deceased and saw him in the pool of blood and thereafter he sent CW-2 to the house of the deceased to bring his father and that he went to his house to bring his father and that he went to his house to bring his brother-in-law. If PW-1 has acted in this manner, it may be only to see that the relations of the deceased are brought to the spot immediately lest some suspicion is cast against the witness himself. Therefore, it cannot be taken as unnatural conduct. PW-1 had gone to the hospital though not with the person who shifted the deceased to the hospital. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the conduct of PW-1 in not giving the history to the Doctor is also unnatural and suspicious. PW-1 is the complainant. He has given the incident in detail in his complaint. He has mentioned the names of the witnesses who had seen the incident. There is no delay in filing the complaint. Therefore, the entire evidence of the witnesses PWs. 1 and 2 cannot be rejected merely on the ground the person who took the deceased to the hospital did not give the history of the case to the Doctor. The evidence of PW-5 proves beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died of homicidal death. The doctor has also opined that the weapon, MO-1, would cause the injury sustained by the deceased. In fact, there is no contradiction between the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and the medical evidence of PW-5. The trial Court has rejected the evidence of PW-1 and 2 on unsustainable and flimsy grounds. If the evidence of PW-1 and 2 is properly assessed and appreciated, it proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused, who stabbed the deceased more than one time with the knife in his hand.
7. In addition to the evidence of eye-witnesses, the prosecution has also relied upon apprehension of the accused on 24-2-1995 at 7-30 p.m. with the blood-stained clothes and knife in the rexin bag. PW-10 is the mahazardar. PW-17 is the Constable who apprehended the accused. PW. 17 has deposed that he was deputed to trace the accused and while searching the accused he came to the bus-stand at Mangalore on 24-2-1991 and saw the accused at 7-15 p.m. near the ticket counter and he had a rexin bag and he apprehended the accused and brought him to the police station and produced before PW-19. PW-19 has stated that he arrested the accused and seized blood-stained knife and clothes under Ex. P10. PW-10 mahazardar has supported the prosecution case. The trial Court has disbelieved this piece of evidence on the ground that no man would venture at his risk to keep the blood-stained clothes and knife in his possession and dare enough to be in a busy public place like bus-stand. This observation of the trial Court exhibits ignorance of the trial Judge about the way in which a criminal acts in such a situation. The evidence is that the accused was found on 24-2-1991 at 7-15 p.m. near the ticket counter in the bus-stand. This circumstance goes to show that the accused had come to the bus-stand with a view to leave Mangalore, otherwise there was no point in his coming to the bus-stand and being found near the ticket counter. The time when he was found was 7-15 p.m. that is, after the sun-set. The trial Court failed to see that the accused came to the bus-stand after the sun-set with a view to leave that place and to escape from the attention of the public or the police. Carrying blood-stained clothes and knife in a rexin bag is also not unnatural. The accused might have had no opportunity to dispose of the clothes or wash them. Therefore, he thought it fit to carry with him outside Mangalore and hence he had kept them in his rexin bag. The appreciation of this piece of evidence of the prosecution is also not proper by the trial Court. There is nothing unnatural or improbable in the conduct of the accused in being found in the bus-stand at 7-30 p.m. near the ticket-counter with the blood-stained clothes and the knife in his rexin bag. This piece of evidence corroborates the evidence of PWs-1 and 2. Another important circumstance, which is over-looked by the trial Court is that the clothes of the accused were also stained with the same blood group of the deceased as can be seen from the Serologist report Ex. P27. Hence, we are of the opinion that the trial Court has not properly assessed and appreciated the evidence of this case. The inferences drawn by the trial Court are not justifiable. The trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused eventhough the evidence led by the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused, who stabbed the deceased on that night.
8. Now the next question is, what is the offence committed by the accused. It cannot be said that the deceased gave him any provocation because after the quarrel the accused went back to his house and brought knife. So when he stabbed, there was no provocation of any sort by the deceased. The case, therefore, clearly falls under S. 302, IPC. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we think that the proper sentence to be awarded to the accused for the offence committed by him is the imprisonment for life. Hence, we pass the following :
ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the trial Court is set aside. The respondent-accused is convicted of the offence punishable under S. 302, IPC and he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is ordered to be taken into custody forthwith for undergoing the sentence awarded to him.
9. Appeal allowed.