RAFEEK HUSENSAB KORTI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the appellant's learned Counsel as also the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri S.S. Koti, in these two appeals. Criminal Appeal No. 1106 of 1996 is directed against the conviction of the appellant who was original accused 2 and who has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years pursuant to his conviction under Section 304, Part II of the IPC.

(2.) It was alleged that the accused persons had been spreading certain rumours with regard to the conduct and physical condition of some of the womenfolk belonging to the complainant's side, that this issue was placed before the panchayat on the evening on 30-1-1995 and that accused 1 did not turn up as required by the panchayat. The complainant's side went to the house of accused 1 in a group and they climbed on the top of the roof and adopted a very aggressive posture at which time it is alleged that accused 2 came out with a knife and stabbed the deceased Noorahammed on the chest. There are two other minor injuries on his person with which we are hardly concerned. Noorahammed died within a short time and a complaint was lodged with the police who promptly arrested the five accused and on completion of the investigation they were put up for trial before the Court of Sessions at Bijapur on a charge of murder. The Trial Court after assessing the evidence recorded the finding that the evidence only disclosed an offence against accused 2 and having regard to the nature of the incident and the injury, convicted him under Section 304, Part II of the IPC and awarded him a sentence of five years R.I. The present appeal is directed against this conviction and sentence.

(3.) Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 1997 is preferred by the State and is for enhancement of punishment, the main contention being that the accused has been dealt with too leniently. I need to mention that the State has also challenged the acquittals under Section 302 of the IPC by way of Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 1997 and the record of the Court indicates that this appeal came to be dismissed at an earlier point of time.