STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SHIVAPPA GURUSIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the common judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal Nos. 334/86, 341/86 and 425/86. Criminal Appeal No. 634/89 is filed by the State of Karnataka against 13 respondents originally accused Nos. 1 and 5 to 16 and who had filed a separate appeal in the High Court. Criminal Appeal No. 635/89 is filed against 3 respondents, original accused Nos. 2 to 4 and who had also filed a separate appeal before the High Court.

(2.) The prosecution case was that P.W. 4 had a share in the land bearing No. 180/1 and that accused Nos. 1 to 4 were obstructing him in cultivation of the said land. P.W. 4 had, therefore, on the day prior to the day of incident filed an application before the police complaining against accused Nos. 1 to 4. On 4-10-1981 between 12.30 p.m. and 1.45 p.m. all the 16 accused armed with deadly weapons went to the said field to take possession of the land. In the field Rudragowda, Siddagowda, Balasaheb, Eragowda P.W. 3 Irappa, P.W. 4 Kadappa, P.W. 5 Mahadev, P.W. 7 Sadashiva and P.W. 9 Nin (sic) were present. All the accused started beating those persons as a result of which 4 persons namely, Rudragowda, Siddagowda, Balasaheb and Eragowda lost their lives and PWs 2, 3, 4 and 6 received injuries. All the 16 accused were tried for various offences including the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. The trial Court relying upon the evidence of PWs 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 held that all the accused had unlawfully confined PWs 3 and 4 and tied them with a rope and that they killed those 4 deceased and injured the prosecution witness and therefore they were all guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 IPC, 342 read with 149, IPC and 323 read with 149 IPC.

(3.) All the 16 convicted accused challenged their conviction before the High Court. The High Court on reappreciation of the prosecution evidence found that really accused Nos. 1 to 4 were in possession of the disputed land and the deceased and their companions wanted to take back forcibly possession of the said land and therefore whatever acts the accused had committed were in exercise of their right of private defence. However, considering the number of injuries found on the dead persons and places from where the dead bodies were found, the High Court held that they were also chased by the accused and given more blows and thus they had exceeded the right of private defence. The High Court had also found that only accused Nos. 1 to 4 were present in the field and it was doubtful if any of the accused Nos. 5 to 16 was present there. The High Court, therefore, giving benefit of doubt acquitted accused 5 to 16 and convicted accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part I I.P.C.