HARAMANT LAXMAPPA KUKKADI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are filed under Section 329 Cr.P.C. read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. There are 11 appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 236/ 82 and they figured as original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18 and 19 and original accused Nos. 10, 12 and 20 are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 237/ 82. They along with nine others were tried for offences punishable under Ss. 148, 302/ 149 and also under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with 149, I.P.C. The trial court convicted A-11 Venkappa Bhagavanthappa under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and acquitted the rest. A- 11 preferred an appeal against his conviction and the State of Karnataka also filed an appeal against the acquittal of the 19 other accused. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by A- 11 and he has not preferred any appeal in this Court. In respect of acquittal of other accused, the High Court, however, set aside the acquittal of the appellants and convicted them for the offences for which they were charged and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and also various terms of imprisonment for the lesser offences. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The acquittal of the remaining accused were confirmed by the High Court. Hence the present two appeals.

(2.) The prosecution case is as follows:

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge concluded that the child Pandappa and Yallappa, the two deceased met with homicidal death. He also held that P.Ws. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 sustained injuries. He, however, doubted the ability of the witnesses to identify the accused as the occurrence took place during darkness and that since the witnesses were interested, their evidence did not inspire confidence and accordingly acquitted the accused except A-11. He, however, held A-11 guilty for causing the death of the child. The High Court, while reversing the order of the acquittal, held that the learned Sessions Judge grossly erred in rejecting the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses merely on the ground that they are interested and that they could not have identified the accused.