MAHADEVASHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 6/10/2017 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chamarajanagar wherein, accused Nos.1 to 3 were tried in S.C.No.17/2015 and accused No.4 was tried in S.C.No.52/2015. However, the learned Sessions Judge passed a common judgment by convicting accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable Under Ss. 341 and 302 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and as far as accused No.4 is concerned, she is convicted for the offence punishable under Ss. 341 and 324 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge directed accused Nos.1 to 3 to pay a fine of Rs.200.00 each for the offence punishable under Sec. 341 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, they are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for eight days and to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000.00 each for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 r/w 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, they are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. However, accused No.4 along with accused Nos.5 and 6 are directed to pay a fine of Rs.200.00 each for the offence punishable under Sec. 341 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, they are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for eight days. Further, accused Nos.4 to 6 are directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,500.00 each for the offence punishable under Sec. 324 r/w Sec. 34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, they are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Further directed that, all the sentence shall run concurrently. Hence, being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 to 4 filed this appeal for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court.

(2.) The factual matrix of prosecution case is that, PW.1- Raju, who is the son of one Madashetty and resident of Kothanuru village, Gundlupet Taluk, lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1 before the respondent police alleging that on 2/12/2014 at about 4.00 p.m., accused No.1 to 5 Mahadevashetty, Nagamallashetty, Sannamadhamma W/o. Arbella and Jayamma D/o. Mahadevashetty picked up a quarrel with one Siddashetty (deceased in this case) and Siddamma i.e., PW.4 with an intention to commit the murder of Siddashetty and Siddamma. Thereby, all the above mentioned accused came by holding chopper, club etc and assaulted Siddashetty with chopper on his head and thigh and they also assaulted PW.4-Siddamma with club on her head. In the meantime, PW.1-complainant Raju, one Thavaragatteshetty-PW.14 and his friends pacified the quarrel and then they took the injured Siddashetty and his wife Siddamma in some vehicle to Government Hospital, Gundlupet. Then as per the recommendation of the Doctors of the Government Hospital of Gundlupet, Siddashetty was taken to Mysore by his brother-in-law namely Gopalashetty. Hence, a complaint has been lodged by PW.1-Raju as per Ex-P1 before the respondent-police and the said complaint registered in FIR as per Ex.P38 for the offence punishable under Ss. 143, 147 , 148, 341, 307 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC. Later, the Investigation Officer-PW.24 registered the case against five accused persons. Thereafter, on 3/12/2014, the injured Siddashetty died due to the assault made by the accused while shifting him from K.R.Hospital to some other hospital for higher treatment and the second complaint came to be lodged by PW.1 as per Ex.P2. Hence, requisition was made by the police before the learned Magistrate to invoke Sec. 302 of IPC in Crime No.210 of 2014 and the same was allowed and accordingly, the police invoked Sec. 302 of IPC and conducted the further investigation in the matter. During the course of investigation, the respondent Police, after recording the statement of the witnesses and collecting the material documents, laid the charge sheet against six accused persons in total for the offence punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 201 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC. On committal of the case to the Court of sessions, learned Sessions Court framed the charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences. However, the accused denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried.

(3.) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against them, the prosecution examined in total 24 witnesses i.e. PW.1 to PW.24 and 39 documents got marked as per Exs.P1 to P39 and also got marked 12 material objects as MO.1 to MO.12. However, the accused did not choose to examine any witness on their favour, nevertheless, they marked Exs.D1 and D2 on their behalf. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and that of false implication. They alternatively contended that since the civil disputes are pending between the deceased family and the accused family, they were falsely implicated in this case by PW.1 and the relatives of the deceased. After completion of the evidence, the incriminating statements were recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge and the accused denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far.