PARAPPA GURUBASAPPA ASANGI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The trial court convicted accused Hanamanta (A-1) u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The other five accused persons, including the appellant, were acquitted of all the charges. Against the order of acquittal, the State of Karnataka filed an appeal in the High Court; whereas the convicted accused preferred an appeal against his conviction. The High Court confirmed the conviction of Hanamanta (A-1), but so far as the State appeal is concerned, it confirmed acquittal of other four accused persons, but reversed the order of acquittal passed by the trial court in relation to the appellant herein and convicted him under Ss. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Against the order confirming acquittal of other accused persons, no appeal has been filed before this Court, inasmuch as accused Hanamanta (A-1) has also not preferred any appeal against the order of the High Court confirming his conviction. The appeal has been filed by the sole appellant against his conviction recorded by the High Court.

(3.) In the present case, the prosecution has examined three persons as eyewitnesses. So far as PW 1 (Irappa Wali) is concerned, the High Court has doubted veracity of his statement and has not placed any reliance thereupon. So far as PW 5 (Muttawwa) is concerned, the High Court came to the conclusion that he could not have been eyewitness to the occurrence, but went on to record its conclusion that this witness arrived immediately after the occurrence and had seen the accused persons, including the appellant, at the place of incident. Thus, remains the solitary eyewitness PW 4 (Girewwa Vali), who has consistently supported the prosecution case that the appellant assaulted the deceased with a sickle on his right hand. The evidence of this witness is corroborated by the medical evidence as PW 3 (Dr. Hosur), who conducted the post-mortem examination, found that Injury 3 was on the right hand and the same could have been caused by a sickle. Apart from the fact that the evidence of PW 4 is supported by the medical evidence, his evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of PW 5 at least to this extent that when she arrived at the place of occurrence, the accused persons were there. This being the position, we are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt so far as the appellant is concerned and the High Court was quite justified in reversing the order of acquittal and convicting him.