1992 INSC 0440
                                                     Babu Poojari

                                                           Vs

                                                 State of Karnataka

                                        Criminal Appeal No. 389 of 1981

                                      (K. Jayachandra Reddy, G. N. Ray JJ)

                                                      11.08.1992

                                                        ORDER

1. The sole appellant before us is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment
for life. The prosecution case is that on April 18, 1978 at about 9 p. m. the accused entered the hotel
of PW 1 and made some 'ghalata'. The deceased obviously asked him not to make 'ghalata' and a
quarrel ensued. Thereupon, the accused, who was armed with a knife stabbed the deceased several
time and the deceased raised hue and cry. PW 1 witnessed the occurrence. PWs 2 and 3, who were
also working in the hotel saw the occurrence. The information was sent to the police and PW 1 gave
a complaint on the basis of which the FIR was registered. The ASI reached the scene of occurrence
and found the deceased dead. An inquest was held and the dead body was sent for post-mortem.
Doctor found seven incised wounds. The doctor opined that Injury No. 2 an oblique incised wound
in front of left shoulder passing through the axillary wall to the armpit was the fatal injury and was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused pleaded not guilty and set up
a defence that he was falsely implicated because of the enmity at the instance of PW 17.

2. PWs 1 to 3 participated in identification parade and identified the accused as the assailant. This
part of the evidence has been believed by both the courts. We have also perused the evidence of
PWs 1 to 3 and the record pertaining to the identification proceedings. We are satisfied that the three
eyewitnesses, who have been believed by both the courts below gave cogent evidence.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that in the FIR it is mentioned that the name
of the assailant was not known, but his name is mentioned in the inquest report which was held next
day at 10.30 a. m., and according to the learned counsel there is no explanation as to how the name
of the accused could be mentioned when he was not even arrested by then and when PWs 1 to 3 did
not know him previously. The Inspector, who held the inquest has explained by saying that on the
material gathered from the statements of some of the persons who were examined, he suspected that
the accused was the person who was responsible and it was accordingly mentioned. It must be
pointed that inquest report is not evidence by itself and at any rate, an explanation has been put
forward in this regard. But the real question is whether PWs 1 to 3, who are independent witnesses,
had any reason to implicate the accused falsely. From the beginning their stand was that they did not
know the accused.

4. However, the eyewitnesses have identified the accused in the test identification parade and we do
not find any infirmity or suspicious feature regarding their identification of the accused. Both the
courts below have in detailed judgments elaborately considered the evidence of these eyewitnesses
and have given good reasons for accepting their evidence.
5. We see absolutely no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
</html