LAXMAN S/O RAYAL KHAJEER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by accused No.1 against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulbarga in Sessions Case No.219/2009 on 17.10.2010 convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC to undergo S.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ - in default, S.I. for one month and also sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/ - and default sentence of 15 days. The trial Court also 3 convicted and sentenced the accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/ - and default sentence of one month. Similarly accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/ - and default sentence of 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. However, it is ordered that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently giving set off as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) IT appears that the accused were arrested during the course of investigation and they were in judicial custody till conclusion of trial. The appellant/accused was in custody for a period of four months. According to the prosecution, the mother of the deceased Smt. Ratnamma filed a complaint to the effect that there was a quarrel one month prior to the incident between herself and one Geetabai wife of Rayal 4 in connection with collecting tap water. Since then they were not in talking terms. With that motive, on 26.03.2009 around 9.30 p.m., the son of Geetabai by name Laxman i.e., accused No.1 and also one Raghu son of Krishnappa abused the deceased Ravi near the house of Yallappa and also this accused No.1 caused the death of Ravi by squeezing his testicles and the accused No.2 Raghu bet the deceased Ravi from his hands. One Hanamanth S/o Nagappa and Viju S/o Basanna who were there pacified them. When complainant went there to see her son, she found her son dead on the spot and she lodged a complaint which came to be registered in crime No.29/2009 for the offences under Sections 302, 323 and 504 R/W Section 34 of IPC. The police after investigation, filed charge sheet. On filing of the charge, the Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court. Charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324 and 302 R/W Section 34 of IPC. 5 Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial court proceeded for trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses and got marked 13 documents and M.Os.1 to 3 and closed the case. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Their defence was total denial. After hearing, the above sentences were passed convicting the accused. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed on various grounds seeking for acquittal.

(3.) AT the outset, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that except PW -4 there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, even as per the admission of PW -4, by the time he went to the spot, people had gathered. As such, he cannot be treated as a witness witnessing the very incident, as already people were gathered there. Accordingly, it is contended that the sole testimony of PW -4 is not sufficient to hold the 7 accused guilty of the offence and submitted that accused is entitled for an order of acquittal.