STATE Vs. K.R. PET TOWN MARIGOWDA @ RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, preferred by the State, is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.11.2005 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Mandya in Sessions Case No. 4/1999, acquitting all the accused who were charged and tried for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 448, 302 and 506 r/w. Section 149 of IPC. The factual matrix, that is necessary for deciding this appeal, is as follows:-

(2.) On 10.05.1998, the deceased - Honegowda (for short 'the deceased') had returned from Bangalore and as usual gone to the farmhouse, in garden land, for sleeping. PW. 2 Boralingegowda and PW. 3 Thimmegowda were also with him in the intervening night of 10/11.05.1998. In the morning (on 11.05.1998), at about 6.00 - 6.30 a.m., PWs. 2 and 3 went in the garden for collecting coconuts. At about 7.00 to 7.30 a.m., they heard cry of the deceased coming from the direction of the farmhouse. They immediately rushed to the farmhouse. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 and 8 were inside the farmhouse, whereas, accused Nos. 5, 7 and 9 were waiting outside. When PWs. 2 and 3 reached and tried to enter the farmhouse, accused Nos. 5, 7 and 9 prevented them and hence, they saw through the window as to what was happening inside the farmhouse. They witnessed accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4, were assaulting the deceased with choppers, whereas, accused Nos. 3, 6 and 8 were assaulting him with clubs. PWs. 2 and 3 again made two-three attempts to enter the house with a view to rescue the deceased, but every time they were prevented by accused Nos. 5, 7 and 9. After the brutal assault, all the accused fled from the scene of offence. Thereafter, PWs. 2 and 3 went inside the farmhouse and after having seen the deceased, PW. 3 went to K.R. Pet to inform his brother PW. 1. PWs. 1 and 3, returned to the farmhouse and after seeing the deceased, PW. 1 rushed to the police station and at 11.00 a.m. lodged a complaint against the accused - persons.

(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at great length and perused the entire evidence placed on record by the prosecution. We would make reference to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties at appropriate stages.