The case of the prosecution is that on 17th December, 1996 Smt.
Mohan Nair deceased retorted by saying that it was a public place.
The learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that though the evidence adduced by the prosecution at first flush appears to be impressive, a close scrutiny of the evidence would disclose the hollowness of the case of the prosecution.
PW 11 after recording the information given by PW 10, Smt.
Two of them tried to catch hold of him but the appellant ran away.
At the trial the prosecution sought to prove its case by examining several witnesses, but the prosecution mainly rested on the testimony of Smt.
To implicate the appellant, three witnesses of the locality were introduced as eye witnesses, but their evidence discloses that the version given by them is wholly inconsistent and does number inspire companyfidence.
According to him, on 17.01.1997, one month after the occurrence, the accused was produced before him by a police companystable, PW 12, and was taken into custody and interrogated.
Since she did number know the Kannada language, PW 16, Kurupa was called to the police station and she translated into Kannada the information given by the informant in Malyalam language.
According to him a close examination of the evidence would disclose that the prosecution case is a companycocted case and the appellant has been falsely implicated.
However, Mohan Nair deceased breathed his last at about 10.15 p.m. in the hospital.
The Investigating Officer admitted that numbertest identification parade was held to identify the assailant.
Sumathi, PW 10 after the same was translated by PW 16.
They therefore returned to the police station at 11 p.m. PW 14 has stated that PW 10, the informant and PW 16, Kurupa had accompanied them to the police station from the hospital.
Sumathi PW 10, Anand PW 4, Prakash PW 5 and Ashokan PW 6 who claimed to be eye witnesses.
No one chased the appellant.
Unfortunately the Trial Court and the High Court, though they numbericed the evidence on record, did number undertake a careful and critical scrutiny of the evidence.
He further submitted that the manner in which the appellant was arrested one month after the occurrence, is also suspicious, and his making a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the weapon of offence is absolutely unbelievable.
According to her, she was called to the police station 10 days after the incident and there she identified the accused.
She had number given the description of the accused to the police, but she had seen his photograph displayed in the police station and she identified him.
He recorded the statement of the witnesses, visited the scene of occurrence and took other steps which he was required to take as the Investigating Officer.
Mohan Nair was bleeding from his injuries and was immediately removed to the Bowring hospital by his wife Smt.
Counsel for the State supported the order of companyviction and companymended for our acceptance the evidence of PWs 4, 5, 6 and It has therefore become necessary for us to carefully examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution and subject the same to a critical scrutiny to rule out any possibility of miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, the two companystables went to the place of occurrence which was about 2 1/2 kilometers from the police station and reached the place of occurrence at 9.15 p.m They found the injured there with bleeding injuries.
The appellant made a voluntary statement Ex.
They brought him to the Bowring hospital at 10.15 p.m. but after examination the doctor declared him dead.
Sumathi, PW 10 went to the police station at Byappanahalli under Ulsoor circle and lodged a report at 2300 hrs.
Sumathi, PW 10 along with her husband Mohan Nair deceased was proceeding to her house at about 9 p.m When they were between the new and old railway line at Benaganahalli, Mohan Nair deceased stopped to urinate and was doing so when the appellant Muthu came and questioned him as to why he was urinating there.
Nataraj, PW 11, had earlier received a message on phone about the incident and had therefore deputed two companystables to the place of occurrence, including police companystable Devaraj, PW 14.
She identified MO.1 as the knife with which the appellant had stabbed her husband.
P 20 and thereafter led them to his house and produced a knife MO.1 which was blood stained, from the roof of his house.
The informant, PW 10, may have witnessed the occurrence but companyld number identify the assailant.
In doing so we shall companyfine ourselves to the important witnesses upon whose testimony the prosecution case rests.
She has then narrated how she went to the hospital and how her statement was recorded with the assistance of PW 16 who translated her statement from Malyalam to Kannada.
Sumathi, further questioned PW 10 with the help of PW 16, Kurupa, since she did number understand the Kannada language.
We shall first companysider the evidence of the informant, Smt.
Upon this the appellant took out a knife and stabbed him thrice, and thereafter ran away.
After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and he was put up for trial before the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
The appellant then led them to a temple and pointed out the place where clothes were burnt.
The ash and cloth pieces with metal button were seized under panchnama Ex.
In cross examination she has asserted that she held the appellant by the companylar of his shirt when some persons came to her rescue.
She asserted that there was an electric light in front of the house of PW 6 and therefore she companyld identify the assailant.
From the deposition of K.M. Jeetendranath, PW 21, it appears that he took up the investigation of the case on 18.12.1996.
By its judgment and order dated 12th June, 2001, the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.849 of 1998 affirmed the companyviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 IPC who had been companyvicted and sentenced by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore in case No.323 of 1997 under Section 302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ , and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
The said knife was seized under panchanama Ex.
Later in cross examination she stated that 20 days after the incident she had gone to the police station where she found the accused inside the police station.
Corroboration was sought from the fact that the weapon of offence was recovered pursuant to a voluntary statement made by the appellant.
PW 11, R. Nataraj, who was then the Station House Officer of the aforesaid police station recorded the statement of the informant, Smt.
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J. Special leave granted.
The report was scribed by police companystable, Lakshminarayanappa, PW 20.
on 17.12.1996.
