Full Judgment Text
Crl.A. No. 50 of 2005
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 50 of 2005
K.V. THIPPESWAMY (D) BY LRS. ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Concededly, the appellant has died and this appeal
is being pursued by his legal representatives.
3. As per the evidence on record, the demand had been
made, the money had been paid over to the accused and
had been recovered from him. The phenolphthalein/sodium
carbonate test also proved positive.
4. The learned counsel has raised primarily one
argument before us. He has pointed out that the
complainant himself had not been examined which made the
very basis of the prosecution case suspect. We find
that the trial court and the High Court have dealt with
this aspect and have observed that when the summons had
been sent to the complainant they had received back with
an endorsement that he was hospitalised and was not in a
Crl.A. No. 50 of 2005
2
position to talk. At one stage, a suggestion had also
been mooted that a Local Commissioner be appointed to
record his statement in the hospital. The trial court
noted that it would be a futile exercise as the
complainant was not even in a position to speak. It is
also clear from the record that the statement made by
the Public Prosecutor that the complainant was not in a
position to appear as a witness had not been challenged
by the defence counsel.
5. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in
the appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.
..............................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
..............................J
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]
NEW DELHI
MARCH 16, 2011.