STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. BHOJAPPA HANAMANTHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents were the accused before the trial Court of Sessions who stood charged under Sections 143, 147, 324, 302 and 504, I.P.C. The common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder of Basappa,Yallappa and Ramappa sons of Huchappa. They not only caused hurt to these three persons by assaulting them with clubs in prosecution of the common object of the same unlawful assembly but also caused the death of Renukevva the minor daughter of the complainant Bhimappa by assaulting her with a sickle when she came to rescue her father. Thus according to the charge they were armed with deadly weapons like clubs and sickle. It was A-1 among them that committed the murder of Renukavva by assaulting her with a sickle. Though the injured witnesses gave evidence the trial Court rejected the prosecution evidence holding that they are unreliable and acquitted the accused. The State has challenged this Judgment of acquittal in this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case briefly stated is that the accused and the prosecution witnesses are of Lingapura village in Dharwad District. A- 1, A-3 and A-4 are the sons of A-2 Hanumanthappa, A-5 married the daughter of A-2. A-6 is the brother of A-5 whereas A-7 has given his younger sister in marriage to A-1. A-8 is also related to A-7, PWs. 13, 14 and 15 i.e. Basappa, Yellappa and Ramappa sons of Huchappa respectively are the younger brothers of the wife of PW 1 the complainant. They are also living at Lingagpur and in the same locality, having 9 acres of land quite near to the land of A-1 to A-4. There is a channel from which PWs 13 to 15 and A-1 to A-4 were taking water to feed their crops. On the morning of 10-9-1983 when PW 15 Ramappa had gone to his land to feed it with water, at about 1 PM, A-3 abused him and beat him questioning why he was obstructing the flow of water by diverting it to his land. Having returned home he told it to PW 1 his brother-in-law and PW1 asked him to wait till his brother returns from the land. In the evening when PWs 13 and 14 his brother returned home PW 15 told them about the incident in which he was assaulted by A-3. Thereafter all of them went to the house of the complainant PW 1. When they were sitting in his house at about 9 PM. PW 1 engaged himself in thrashing linseed. At that time A-1 went there challenging these witnesses to go to the land preventing him from taking water to his land. A-2 to A-8 had also followed him. They started abusing PW 13. At that time A-1 was armed with a wooden hammer called "Hente-Kodati" used to break mud-lumps and others with bamboo sticks. All the accused assaulted PWs 13 and 14 and when PW 1 intervened his daughter Renukvva, 12 year of age came running and attempted to rescue him by hugging him. A-1 assaulted her with the said Kodati and she fell down. He was also assaulted then. She sustained bleeding injury. He sent his son Ramappa to Hamsabavi, Police Station but in the meanwhile Sub Inspector of Police PW 19 who had received information about rioting at Hansabavi came there on a motorcycle and the injured Renukavva was taken to Hansabavi Government Hospital. By the time they reached the hospital she had died. He filed his complaint as per Ex P 1 before PW 19 the P.S. I. on which a case in Cr. No. 36 /84 came to be registered at 11.30 PM the same night. PW 19 referred the injured witnesses including PW 1 for treatment to the Government hospital. The following day inquest was held over the deadbody at the hospital and mahazer of the spot of incident was also drawn by him. Material witnesses were examined. A1, A3, A7 and A8 were arrested on 14-9-1984 and A-2 on 16-9-1984. The four accused arrested on 14-9-1984 gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in the Assistant Superintendent of Police PW 21 and then produced the wooden hammer and three clubs either from their houses or from near the houses which were seized under mahazars. Even A2 produced a club. On 27-9-1984 the other accused surrendered before the J. M. F. C. Court at Hirekerur and they were arrested. Their statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were recorded as per Exs. P-26 to P- 28. They also produced a club each. Though the C. P. I., Hirekerur had taken up investigation for some time ultimately it was the A. S. P. PW 21 who completed it and filed the charge-sheet.

(3.) The trial Court found the evidence given by these witnesses including the injured witnesses as unreliable and discrepant. It was urged on behalf of the State that motive is clearly established by bringing on record that the accused were aggrieved by the act of PW 15 in taking water to his land, there was earlier incident in the land the same morning and at the time of the incident at night the accused clearly showed that they had the common object to commit these offences. The learned Counsel for the respondents however not only supported the Judgment of acquittal but also contended that charge No. 1 was wholly different from the evidence adduced and the evidence has absolutely no bearing on the charge which A 1 was called upon to face. Even on the ground the acquittal is proper. We have reappraised the evidence.