2001 Supreme(Kar) 384
Karnataka High Court
Sheshrao - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 06-27-01
CRIMINAL APPEAL : 200 of 1998
B.C.Muddappa, Basavaraj Kareddy
The duty of the prosecutor to present a complete and truthful picture before the Court, and the duty of the Investigating Officer to be truthful and impartial in presenting the case.
Headnote:
Conviction - Offences under Sections 342 and 302 r/w. Sec. 34, I. P. C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: Ss. 342 and 302 r/w S. 34, I. P. C. - The court discussed the evidence and legal provisions related to the charges under Sections 342 and 302 r/w S. 34, I. P. C. The judgment highlighted the quality of evidence, duty of the prosecutor, and the duty of the Investigating Officer in presenting a complete and truthful picture before the Court.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Gopal Jadhav, was assaulted by accused Nos. 1 to 3 at Tugaon village. The prosecution relied on the evidence of 16 witnesses, 13 documents, and 9 material objects. The accused were convicted of offences under Sections 342 and 302 r/w S. 34, I. P. C. based on the direct evidence of eye-witnesses and the recovery panchanama of seizure of M. O. 5.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the genesis of the prosecution case was doubtful and there was an attempt to suppress important material facts. The judgment highlighted the duty of the prosecutor to present a complete picture and the duty of the Investigating Officer to be truthful and impartial. The court concluded that the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge was not sustainable in law and acquitted the appellants-accused of all charges.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of the evidence, the duty of the prosecutor, and the duty of the Investigating Officer in presenting a complete and truthful picture before the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the prosecutor to present a complete picture and not to suppress or keep back relevant evidence. It also highlighted the duty of the Investigating Officer to be truthful and impartial in presenting the case. The judgment underscored the importance of honest, truthful, and reliable evidence in criminal cases.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge was set aside, and the appellants-accused were acquitted of all charges.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga convicting accused Nos. 1 to 3 of offences punishable under Sections 342 and 302 r/w. Sec. 34, I. P. C. and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for the offence punishable under S. 302 r/w. S. 34, I. P. C. , in default to undergo S. I. for a period of 3 months. The learned Sessions Judge further sentenced them to undergo R. I. for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under S. 342, r/w. S. 34, I. P. C. and ordered the sentences to run concurrently.
( 2 ) THE appellants-accused were charged and tried for the offences punishable under Ss. 342 and 302 r/w S. 34, I. P. C. All the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In proof of the charges, prosecution relied on the evidence of 16 witnesses, 13 documents and 9 material objects. After hearing the arguments on both sides and on consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge held the accused guilty of the charges under Ss. 342 and 302 r/w S. 34, I. P. C. and passed the impugned judgment.
( 3 ) ACCUSED Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers and accused No. 3 is their sister. They are appellants 1 to 3 before this Court. 3rd appellant who will be hereinafter called as the 3rd accused was married to the deceased-Gopal Jadhav about 20 years prior to the date of incident which occurred on the night of 2/3-1-1996 at Tugaon village. She had two sons and two daughters but to her misfortune, her sons died prematurely. It is the case of the prosecution that she has undergone Tubectomy operation which angered her husband viz. , the deceased and quarrel started between her and the deceased. Therefore, she left her husband, took her two daughters to her parents' house and stayed with accused Nos. 1 and 2 at Tugaon. The deceased thereafter married P. W. 2 Prabhavathi, 10 years prior to the date of incident and she gave birth to a son and two daughters. They were residing in Gagalegaon village which is situated at a distance of 2 kms from Tugaon. The deceased gave 5 acres of land to his first wife viz. , accused No. 3 in lieu of maintenance. He was also visiting her house in order to see his daughters. However, due to family pressure, he was made to request accused No. 3 to return 5 acres of land given by him in lieu of maintenance, which was not acceptable to her and her brothers. Thus the accused were not happy with the conduct of the deceased. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the evening of 2-1-1996 which was a Tuesday, the deceased visited Tugaon. He first visited his sister, P. W. 6-Kamalabai and thereafter left to see his wife, accused No. 3. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the date of incident during night at about 1. 00 or 1. 30 a. m. , P. W. 1-Baburao, P. W. 3-Anjalibai, P. W. 4-Rekhabai, P. W. 5-Vithal and P. W. 6-Kamalabai heard some noise in front of the school situated very near to their houses. Hence they came out of their houses and found accused Nos. 1 to 3 assaulting the deceased. The hands and legs of the deceased were tied with a rope. While accused No. 3 assaulted the deceased with stones, accused No. 3 assaulted with axe on his head and accused No. 1 assaulted with a stick. They so assaulted the deceased by saying that he had deserted accused No. 3 ten years back and had now come in search of holdings. P. W. 1 who is the village Dalapathy went to rescue the deceased but he was threatened by the accused persons. Thereafter, all the witnesses went back to their houses as if nothing had happened. They witnessed this incident in the electric light. On the next day morning at about 6. 00 or 6. 30 p. m. , P. W. 1 came out of his house and found that the deceased was still alive. The deceased requested him to give some water and P. W. 1 gave him water. Since there was no vehicle in the village, P. W. 1 took him in a bul