NAGA ALIAS NAGARAJAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals by accused Nos. 1 and 2 are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against them by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore who by his judgment dated 10th May, 2002 convicted the appellants 1 and 2 for offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default, to suffer imprisonment for three more months and ordered the sentence to run concurrently.

(2.) THE Harohalli police in Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, laid a charge sheet against 10 accused persons alleging offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34, IPC and 120-B r/w 302, IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2 and under Section 114 r/w 302, IPC against accused Nos. 3 to 9 and under Section 212, IPC against accused No. 10. It is alleged that on 4-2-1995 at about 8 am. at Kollinganahalli village, accused Nos. 1 and 2 with the common intention had committed murder of Jayarama by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of the said person and earlier to 4-2-1995, they agreed to do or cause to do an illegal act of getting CW 8 married to Accused No. 1 and to get her mother's property and since deceased Jayarama was married to CW 8, they wanted to kill Jayarama by illegal means and the said act was done in pursuance of the agreement and that accused Nos. 3 to 9 abetted the commission of murder by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and that Accused No. 10 harboured Accused Nos. 1 and 2 after they had committed the murder of deceased Jayarama.

(3.) THE prosecution mainly rests its case on the direct evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 24 and other circumstances like the homicidal death of Jayarama on the early morning of 4-2-1995, the motive for the commission of the offence and the recovery of weapons of offence used by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the commission of the offence of murder. It is unnecessary for us to go into the details of the prosecution case as the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants is essentially directed on one question viz. , the prejudice caused to them for not properly examining the accused/appellants as required under Section 313, Cr. P. C.