B M SURESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal has been preferred by the original accused No. 2 assailing the convictions recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur in Sessions Case No. 11/92. It was alleged that on the evening of 26-6-1990 at about 5 p. m. , the original accused No. 1 Chandra (since deceased) and the present accused got into an altercation with one Ramachandra Gowda. They are alleged to have questioned him about a complaint lodged by him with the police about three months earlier to the incident alleging that the accused were involved in sandal wood thefts. Accused No. 1 was armed with a spade and accused No. 2 had a knife with him and it is alleged that A-1 dealt a blow on the head of Ramachandra Gowda which caused a serious injury to him and was ultimately detected to have caused a fracture of the skull. Accused No. 2 caused a bleeding injury on the hand of Ramachandra Gowda's son who is PW-2. The injury is relatively minor and accused No. 2 has been held liable under Section 324, IPC. The trial Court after evaluating the evidence recorded the finding that both the accused were acting in furtherance of their common intention and since the head injury inflicted on Ramachandra Gowda was relatively serious the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC and directed that he should undergo R. I. for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default S. I. for 2 months. For the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34, IPC, he was sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer S. I. for 1 month. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The present appeal is directed against the aforesaid convictions and sentences.

(2.) AT the hearing of the appeal, the appellants' learned counsel Sri Deshpande after a review of the evidence on record, advanced the submission that the oral evidence in this case which consists essentially of the depositions of PWs-1 and 2 does not conclusively establish the offence because, admittedly the prosecution witnesses belonged to the camp of the injured Ramachandra Gowda and he submitted that on their own admission, there appears to be some background of hostility between the parties because of the earlier complaint to the police regarding the sandal wood thefts. It was his submission that in a situation such as this, some independent evidence would have inspired confidence in the mind of the Court and that consequently, the appellant must be given the benefit of doubt.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate has opposed this submission and he points out that the evidence on record clearly establishes the participation of the present appellant and that even though accused No. 1 is dead, since the material before the Court indicates that both the accused had come together, they were armed with weapons and since they had participated in the assault though to different degrees, that the legal liability, under both the heads of charge would render the present appellant liable to the same extent as original accused No. 1. It is his submission that no interference is called for in this case.