MAHADEVA Vs. RAMESHA SON OF BOREGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner was the complainant before the Trial Court. It was his case that his brother Javaregowda owned about 1 1/2 acres of land and that the present petitioners also owned adjoining lands. There was a running dispute between the two, namely the petitioner and his brother on the one side and the respondents on the other, as regards the boundary of their properties. It was the allegation of the complainant that the respondents were awaiting an opportunity to kill his brother Javaregowda. It transpires that on 19.03.2006 at about 5.00 p.m. when Javaregowda was alone on his land, and when he had gone there to collect firewood, the respondents had purportedly picked up a quarrel and had assaulted him with clubs. Javaregowda had shouted for help and the complainant and one Prakasha had arrived on the scene. On seeing them, the respondents had run away. Javaregowda was profusely bleeding but was alive. They had immediately admitted him to the K.R. Hospital, Mysore, where he had succumbed to injuries. On the next date, i.e. on 20.03.2006, the present petitioner had lodged a complaint at Arakere Police Station as regards the incident. The case was registered as Crime No.40/2006 and after further investigation, a case was registered before the Court of Magistrate in C.C.No.27/2006. It is the further case of the prosecution that Accused Nos.1 and 2 voluntarily surrendered and all the prosecution papers were made available to them. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate had committed the case to the District and Sessions Court, Mandya and the case was registered as S.C.No.78/2006 and was ultimately made over to the Court of Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II and the respondents having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the prosecution had tendered evidence and had examined 19 witnesses and had marked Exhibits P1 to P29 and on behalf of the accused, five documents had been marked as Exhibits D1 to D5. Eight incriminating articles had been produced and identified as MO-1 to MO-8. After hearing the arguments, the court below had framed the following points for consideration: