PADMANABHA RAO Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Special First Class Magistrate of Ramanagaram committed the appellants (accused 1 to 4 in Cr. A. No. 39/52-53 and accused 5 in Cr. A. No. 42/52-53) along with six others to take their trial before the Court of Session, Bangalore, accused 1 to 11 for an offence under Section 143; accused 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 for offences under Sections 149 and 302; accused 2 and 3 for an offence under Section 302; and accused 1, 4 and 8 for offences under Sections 109 and 302, Penal Code. The case of the prosecution was that, on the night of 12-8-1951, the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at Singarajapura village in Channapatna Taluk with the common object of murdering S. N. Narasimhamurthy Rap, Proprietor of the "Standard Motor Service", Singarapura, due to the ill-will that existed between them, that in prosecution of that common object the accused armed themselves with deadly weapons, chased deceased Narasimha-murthy Rao when he was returning from Aniyur tank at about 8 P. M., that accused 2 and 3 at the instigation of accused 1, 4 and 8 hit him with an axe and 'betta katti' with the intention of causing his death, that as a result the deceased Narasimhamurthy Rao died on the spot and that the accused thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 149, 302 and 34, Penal Code, and are liable to be dealt with according to law. The assessors were unanimously of the opinion that accused 6 to 11 were not guilty of the offences with which they were charged and the learned Sessions Judge, agreeing with their opinion, acquitted those accused. All the assessors were also unanimous in their opinion that the appellant in Cr. A. No. 42/52-53 was not guilty of the offence he was charged with, viz. of an offence under Section 143, Penal Code but the learned Sessions Judge discarded their opinion and convicted the said appellant (accused 5 in the Sessions Court) for an offence under Section 143, Penal Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Hence Cr. A. 42/52-53. The majority of the assessors were further of the opinion that the appellants in Cr. A. No. 39/, 52-53 (accused 1 to 4) were not guilty of the offences with which they were charged but one of the assessors was of the opinion that the said appellants were guilty of those offences. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the opinion of the majority and, agreeing with the opinion of the single assessor, convicted the appellants of the offence under Section 109 read withSection 302 Penal Code and sentenced each of them to death. The learned Judge further convicted them of an offence under Section 143, Penal Code and sentenced each of them to a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Hence Cr. A. No. 39/52-53 by accused 1 to 4. The learned Sessions Judge has also made a reference to this Court under Section 374, Criminal P. C. for confirmation of the sentence of death passed on accused 1 to 4.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge has relied on the evidence of the eye-witnesses (P. Ws. 15 and 16) and on the discovery of M. O. 2 and M. O. 3 in consequence of the information furnished by one or the other of the appellants and on the ill-will existing between the deceased and his partisans including the eye-witnesses on the one hand and appellant 1 and his partisans including the other appellants on the other, for his finding that the appellants are guilty of the offences of which they have been convicted.

(3.) The main contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants are -- (1) that the learned Sessions Judge, while agreeing with the opinion of the assessors in discarding the prosecution evidence as regards accused 6 to 11, was wrong in relying on the very same evidence and in rejecting the majority opinion of the assessors, as regards the appellants; (2) that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in relying on the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses to the occurrence (Viz. p. Ws. 15 and 16) when he discarded the said evidence as regards accused 8 and that the inherent improbabilities in the version given by the eye-witnesses makes it quite unsafe to act on them; and (3) that the evidence of the eye-witnesses is not strictly consistent and definitely opposed to the evidence of the doctor, (P. W. 17) and the defence witnesses examined in the case. The learned Advocate-General, on the other hand, submitted that there is no warrant in law to support the proposition that because the evidence of an eye-witness is discarded as regards one accused, the same should be discarded as against all the other accused and that the learned Sessions Judge was quite correct in acting on the evidence of the eye-witnesses. His argument is that the evidence of the two eye-witnesses has to be accepted and that their evidence leaves no room to doubt regarding the guilt of the appellants and that the benefit of doubt given by the learned Sessions Judge to accused 8 can have no bearing on the guilt of the appellants before us or the credibility of the evidence of the eyewitnesses. He pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge has given good and valid reasons in his judgment for rejecting the opinion of the assessors regarding accused 3 and the majority opinion regarding accused 1 to 4. The learned Advocate-General also referred us to the other circumstances appearing in the case, viz. (1) the discovery of the weapons with which the deceased was said to have been injured, in consequence of the information furnished by the respective appellants: (2) the presence of blood-stains on the kenicker, M. O. 8, worn by accused 2; and (3) the admitted and established ill-will between the deceased and the appellants, in support of his contention that the evidence of the eye-witnesses is true and must be accepted.