NAGANAGOUDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants Sri K.L.Patil and Sri. Srinand A. Pachhapure in Crl.A.No.100259/2017 and Crl.A. No.100256/2017 so also Sri S.A. Sandur, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl.A.No. 100257/2017 and Crl.A.No.100258/2017. We have also heard Sri V.M. Banakar, learned Addl. SPP for the respondent-State.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution are that there was long standing ill-will between the accused and the complainant, since the land bearing survey No.58 belonging to accused No.1 and the land bearing Survey No.66 belonging to the first informant are adjacent to one another and the accused were proclaiming that their land extends up to the bank of the river. In that regard, there were frequent quarrels between the two parties and the accused were proclaiming that they would cause death of any one of the complainant's party and will take possession of the land, till the bank of the river.

(3.) It is the further contention of the prosecution that on 04.12.2012 when the first informant along with CW9 was harvesting the sugar cane crop grown in his land bearing Survey No.66, at about 11.00 a.m., all the accused forming themselves into an unlawful assembly came and warned the informant and CW9 not to cut and remove the sugar cane crop.