STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. RAMANJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 794-796 of 1996 filed by the State of Karnataka, by special leave, as also Criminal Appeal No. 2045 of 1996, filed by A-20 (Raja alias Venkataraja) and A-33 (Hanumanthaiah alias Hanumaiah) against their convictions and sentence.

(2.) For the murder of Chennappa and Honna Nanjaiah, which occurred on 16th February, 1987, as many as 36 persons were charged for committing various offences and sent up for trial before three learned Sessions Court. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 30th March, 1992 acquitted 18 persons out of the accused party. 16 persons were convicted for various offence out of which A-1, A-2, A-20, A-30 and A-33 were convicted for substantive offences under Section 302/149, IPC. besides other offences 73 out of the accused persons were convicted for various offences including offences and Section 326/149 IPC A-27, A-28, and A-29, three ladies, were convicted for an offence under Section 323, IPC but given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

(3.) Both the convicts, as well as the State, filed appeals in the High Court. Whereas the convicts filed appeals against their conviction and sentence, State filed the appeal against acquittal of accused, other than A-1, A-2, A-20, A-30 and A-33. On 16th March, 1994, a Division Bench of the High Court, after a very detailed discussion of the evidence on the record, found that the prosecution had been unable to establish, by trustworthy, reliable and cogent evidence, that all the 37 accused, who had been charged for committing the murders of Chennappa and Honna Nanjaiah, had actually participated in the occurrence. After analyzing the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-7, three ace witnesses of the prosecution, the High Court came to the conclusion that there evidence, which implicates all the accused persons, is of a partisan nature; bristles in most parts with unnaturalness and embellishments and that deliberate attempts have been made by the prosecution witnesses to implicate persons who were nowhere near the occurrence and that there has been a deliberate attempt to implicate innocent persons along with some of the guilty ones. The High Court noticed in infirmities in the evidence of the eye-witnesses and taking note of the medical evidence found that the burn injuries found on the deceased, being post-mortom, gave a direct lie to the evidence of the eye-witnesses to the effect that after causing injuries to the two deceased the accused party set them on fire while they were still alive by pouring kerosene oil on them and litting their bodies with a match stick. The High Court also noticed the different versions given by different witnesses of the prosecution with regard to the accused who were alleged to have poured kerosene oil on the two deceased before setting them on fire. After analysis of the evidence, the Division Bench of the High Court came to the conclusion that only five of the accused persons, namely, A-1, A-2, A-20, A-30 and A-33 were guilty of the offence of rioting under Section 147, IPC and they were accordingly convicted for the said offence and sentence to six months' RI. The above five convicts were also found guilty of an offence under Section 148, IPC and sentence to undergo one year RI. All the above five convicts were found guilty under Section 326/149, IPC for having caused grievous hurt to deceased Chennappa and were sentenced to under 7 years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default to suffer RI for one year. They were also found guilty of the offence under Section 326/149, IPC for causing grievous hurt to deceased Honna Nahjaiah and sentenced to 7 years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default one year RI. Rest of the convicts were acquitted by the High Court and were directed to be set at liberty forthwith. Their conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 302/149, IPC was set aside. The State appeal against acquittal, being Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 1992, was also dismissed by the High Court.