Earabhadrappa Alias Krishnappa vs State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 1983
20. Tijauram (PW/2) has deposed that he had prepared only the blade part of the said Gandasa for the accused for a consideration of Rs. 7/-. Nevertheless the blade part of the said Gandasa was not put to test identification, for the purpose of testing the veracity of the statement given by Tijauram (PW/2). The learned Judge of the trial Court has reasoned that prior test of identification of any article is not a requirement of law. Reliance has been placed on Earabhadruppa v. State of Karnataka . However, the facts of the said authority of the Apex Court are obviously distinguishable from the facts of the present case. According to the facts reported in the said authority, the golden ornaments and precious silk saris of a lady were robbed, after killing her. The mother-in-law and the son of the said lady identified in the Court said golden ornaments and silk saris as belonging to the lady who was murdered. Under the said circumstances, it was observed in para No. 12 of the said authority that mother-in-law of the deceased was not cross-examined at all regarding her identifying the said precious ornaments and clothes, as belonging to the deceased. It was further observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that ladies have an uncanny ability of identifying their own belongings, particularly articles of personal use, in the family. Apart from it, the description of the silk saris in question showed that they were expensive saris with distinctive designs. There is thus, obviously difference between an iron Gandasa used for chopping straw prepared by a gold smith, who prepared many such "Gandasas" for many other cultivators on one hand and precious golden ornaments and costly silk saris of distinctive designs on the other, which the lady who was murdered must have been generally wearing and whose mother-in-law and son must have been seeing the said lady wearing the said golden ornaments and saris.