NANJAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.1.2009 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I at Mandya in S.C. No. 39/00, convicting all the appellants-accused under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 342, 302, 506 R/w 149 of IPC. The maximum sentence awarded by the trial Court is for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to undergo RI for one month for the offence punishable under Section 302 R/w 149 of IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:

(2.) The incident, according to prosecution, occurred sometime around 1.00 p.m. The complainant came to the village and informed about the incident to the villagers at about 2.00-2.30 p.m. They went to the scene of offence and brought Ramachandra to the Hospital at about 3.00-3.30 p.m. The FIR was lodged some time between 6.00-7.00 p.m. The complaint/FIR was recorded by Manchegowda (PW 24), and on the basis thereof, he registered a crime bearing Cr. No. 217/99. The next day i.e., 20.11.99, they conducted inquest panchanama in the morning and sometime in the afternoon went to the scene of offence, from where an axe (MO. 1) was seized from the river, at the instance of PW 8, who had seen the accused persons throwing it in the river. Thereafter, different panchanamas were drawn, statements of several persons were recorded and material objects were seized/attached and after completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. After the charge sheet was filed, the learned Magistrate committed case to the Sessions Court. A1 to A3 and A5 surrendered before the Magistrate on 6.12.99 and A4 on 14.12.99.

(3.) The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as 27 witnesses and placed several documents, material objects on record in support of its case. In the course of the trial, the defence propounded by the accused persons was that of total denial. The further defence, as disclosed in the course of cross-examination of the witnesses, was that the incident did not occur at the time and the date and so also in the manner in which it was stated by the complainant (PW 8) in the FIR. In short, according to the appellants-accused, PW 8 did not witness the incident at all and the whole prosecution case is concocted and appellants were falsely implicated at the instance of brothers of Ramachandra.