STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SHANKREPPA RUDRAPPA PARIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Addl. SPP, as also all the three learned counsel who represent the ten accused, who are respondents to this appeal on merits. Mr. Naik, the learned counsel, who represents the first respondent, states that it is true that his client has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and awarded a sentence of life imprisonment. This accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1524/03 and, the Court will consider the validity or otherwise of the conviction and sentence in that appeal. Mr. Naik has limited his submission as far as this appeal is concerned, that the trial Court has very rightly, in well considered Judgment, held that the accused No. 1 cannot be held liable for any of the remaining heads of charges and had acquitted him and that as far as these charges are concerned that the present appeal field by the state on the basis of this record is unsustainable. After a very careful review of the record and in particular the judgment, we up hold this submission as far as the accused No. 1 is concerned. While, we clarify that this finding has nothing further to do with the merits of the appeal filed by this accused, we confirm the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court as far as accused No. 1 is concerned. The validity or otherwise of his conviction and sentence u/s 302 IPC will be considered independently by the Court when Crl. A. No. 1524/2003 is heard, de-hors anything which is observed in this judgment.

(2.) THE learned Addl. SPP submitted that the medical evidence conclusively establishes that the deceased sustained several injuries that could only have been caused through iron rods and that therefore, the accused 2 to 10, who are alleged to have assaulted the accused with iron rods, will have to be convicted. His submission is that, all the heads of charges under which these accused persons have been acquitted, including the charge of rioting and unlawful assembly, which fastens the deemed liability on them, even for the offence of murder will have to be interfered with and that the trail Court was wrong in having drawn a distinction between the accused No. 1 and the remaining accused.

(3.) THE learned counsel, who represent accused 2 to 10, have advanced an interesting submission, which is also a submission of considerable substance. First of all, they pointed out that the recovery evidence has been rejected by the trail Court and that having regard to the state of the record and the non-production of the documents containing the voluntary statement that this finding will have to be confirmed. To this extent, we uphold the finding with regard to the recovery as recorded by the trial court.