SHIVAPPA LAXMAN SAVADI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein stood his trial in the Court of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum in S.C.65/89 and thereat he was found guilty of having committed the murder of one Keshav, of having caused grievous hurt to one Shanthu and of having caused simple injury to one Annasab. The learned Sessions Judge while convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences imposed the sentence of life imprisonment for the offence of murder and also Sentenced the appellant to terms of imprisonment ranging from 1 to 3 years for the kindred offences punishable under Ss. 326 and 324, I.P.C. He ordered the sentence to run concurrently.

(2.) Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the learned Sessions Judge as aforesaid the appellant preferred this appeal. Herein we shall refer to the appellant as the accused for the sake of convenience.

(3.) On his behalf we have heard a very tenacious but persuading argument by Sri Ravindra Patil who appears in support of this appeal. A valiant attempt was made by learned counsel for the accused to establish that his client has fallen prey to a frame-up by a set of conniving witnesses who belong to the wealthy landlord gentry of the Athni wherein this incident is said to have occurred. The accused who belonged to Kuruba community, the counsel says, had chosen to live amongst the landed gentry who belonged to the higher caste Jains and so the witnesses who belong to the Jain community in order to get rid of him have falsely implicated him in the case. In the end learned counsel urged that even admitting the prosecution case to be 100% true and fool-proof the evidence adduced in the case would go to show that whatever had been done by the accused had been done by him in exercise of his right of private defence and that he had not exceeded his right of private defence. It is also urged by him that even if the court were to hold the accused had exceeded the right of self-defence then at the highest the offence committed by the accused with reference to one of the victims of the assault viz. deceased Keshav would only be an offence punishable under Part II of S. 304, I.P.C. meriting a lesser and a lighter punishment than the punishment of imprisonment for life.