DAYANANDA ALIAS DEEPAK GOWDA, SRI MANIKANTHA ALIAS MANIKANTHEGOWDA, SRI SHIVANANJEGOWDA AND SRI DINESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence for the charges punishable under Sections 326, 324 r/w 34 IPC on a trial held by the Fast Track Court at Hassan. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: Appellants 1 and 2 are the sons of appellant No. 3, whereas, appellant No. 4 is his son -in -law. PW 6 - Somashekar is the elder brother of PW 4 and the younger brother of accused No. 3. Earlier to the incident in question, the house of PW 6 Somashekar was damaged by accused No. 3 and in a complaint of that incident PW 4 was a witness and had deposed against accused No. 3. On 17.1.2007 at about 6.30 p.m. PW 4 Devarajegowda with his wife PW 5 Radha were returning to their house. When they were in front of the house of one Shamanna, the accused (appellants herein) in furtherance of their common intention intercepted PWs. 4 and 5 and accused Nos. 1 and 2 assaulted PW 4 with a chopper, whereas, accused No. 3 assaulted PW 5 Radha. PW 4 to avoid the first blow of accused No. 2 which was aimed on the head, moved his head and thereby the blow fell on the right palm. Accused No. 4 is said to have assaulted PW 4 with the stone. He escaped and he did not sustain any injury. At the intervention of PWs. 7 and 8, the accused left assault and went away. Injured PWs. 4 and 5 were taken to the hospital and PW 4 while under treatment submitted his complaint (Ex. P3) to PW 14 the Head Constable and it came to be registered in Crime No. 7/2007 for the offence under Sections 341, 307 r/w 34 IPC. The FIR was sent to the Magistrate. PW 14 went to the spot and held the spot mahazar Ex. P1 and at that time seized MOs. 5, 8 and 9. The statement of the witnesses were recorded during further investigation by PW 19. PW 3, PW 18 and others apprehended the accused and produced before PW 19. On the interrogation, the accused volunteered to produce the weapons and MOs. 1, 3 and 4 (choppers) were seized at the instance of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The clothes of the injured were produced and they were seized under a mahazar. The seized articles were sent to the opinion of the experts. PW 4 the injured was treated by PWs. 15, 16 and 17. The injury certificates of both the injured were secured. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC. During the trial the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 19, got marked the documents Exs. P1 to P19 and MOs. 1 to 10. The statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was led. The trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record convicted the appellants for the charge under Sections 326, 324 r/w 34 IPC and for the offence under Section 326 IPC they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each with default sentence, whereas, for the offence under Section 324 IPC, they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ - each with default sentence. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned High Court Government Pleader.

(3.) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that except the interested and related witness, the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and the trial Court committed an error in accepting the evidence of the relatives and the injured. It is also his submission that the evidence of the injured and relatives is not consistent and as there are material contradictions in their evidence he submits that the version of the prosecution ought to have been disbelieved. He also contends that, the medical evidence does not corroborates the ocular evidence. Hence, he would submit that the appellants are entitled for an order of acquittal by setting aside the conviction and sentence ordered.