STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. HARIJAN DHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals are by the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge at Bellary, finding Al guilty under S. 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and extending the benefit of S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ('P. O. Act' for short).

(2.) Brief facts are that on the night of 23-8-1986 PW1 Anjaneyalu and the deceased G. P. Hugar who were working as constables in the Railway Protection Force ('RPF' for short) were on duty at Bellary Railway Yard. When both of them were walking in the Railway Yard, two persons carrying railway sleepers were sighted by them. The deceased identified both of them us Dharma and Sidda - the present accused persons. They alerted another RPF constable Kamble who was on duty. On hearing the shouts from these constables, both the accused persons threw the sleepers and ran away, PW1 and the deceased chased them from behind whereas Kamble came from the other side. Both the accused were then found standing near a certain Kutty's hotel on Shiruguppa Road. Their mother Gangamma was also there and she abused them in Telugu language. When these three constables approached them, Gangamma who was A3 in the case, caught hold of the shirt of PWl - complainant and A2 assaulted him on his shoulder. When Al wanted to stab him on his neck, he avoided it, the blow fell on the deceased. He then left the place and ran away. Therefore, he saw the deceased lying on B. G. Platform (Broad guage). He had injury on his stomach as well as chest and he had died. With these allegations in the FIR that he filed at 10-30 p.m. at the Railway Police Station, Bellary, a case under Ss.307 and 302 read with S.34, IPC was registered against the three accused persons and investigation taken up. The sleepers were seized and eye witnesses were examined.

(3.) The trial Court on considering the evidence on record, found Al guilty under S. 304 Pan II,IPC and also under Ss.379 and 332 r/w S. 34, IPC. It found A2 guilty under S. 379 read with S. 34, IPC and S. 332 read with S. 34, IPC. Having called for the report of the Probation Officer under S.6 of the P.O. Act and considering the age of the accused as well as the circumstances of the case, the trial Court released both the accused under S. 4 of the P.O. Act taking bonds from them to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of three years and also placed them under supervision of the Probation Officer of the District by passing a supervision order.