SRIDHARA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 challenging the judgment of conviction dated 7-5-2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar, in Sessions Case No. 23/1997 holding both the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life. It is reported by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the accused No. 2, Kariya @ Jogi, expired on 6-12-2003, which fact has been confirmed by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. Hence appeal abated so far as accused No. 2 is concerned.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution case, are as follows: the deceased Abdul Rahim Mohammad Khan Khaji and his two daughters, P. W. 1. Sameenabanu and P. W. 3 Bibijainabbi were the residents of Herur village. The accused No. 1 has his residence in the neighbour-hood of the house of the deceased. His arrack shop also is near his house. The accused No. 2 and the acquitted accused No. 3 are stated to be the customers of accused No. 1. About six days prior to the incident in question, namely on 12-8-1996 there was some quarrel between the deceased Abdul Rahim. Mohammad Khan Khaji and the accused No. 1 regarding latter's act of erecting a TV antena pillar on the open land between their two respective houses. As both these accused and the acquitted accused threatened the deceased, the deceased was forced to lodge a complaint with the police against them and the police warned these accused in this regard. The accused No. 1 executed a bond for well behaviour in this regard. That is the reason for enmity between the accused No. 1 and the deceased and motive for the murder of the said Abdul Rahim Mohammad Khan Khaji. Even after execution of a bond for good behaviour, the accused threatened the deceased not only with dire consequence, but also that he would outrage the modesty of the daughters of the deceased. In view of that threat, the deceased sent both his daughters to Sirsi and as on the date of the incident he was staying alone in the house. On 19-8-1996, Abdul Rahim Mohammad Khan Khaji was found dead in the courtyard of his house. It was noticed that there were certain injuries on his body. On receipt of the information the Police went to the spot, P. W. 2 Jamalsab Alisab, an acquaintance of the deceased and a statement which has been treated as first information and on the basis of the same, a case in Crime No. 263/1996 for an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC came to be registered against all the three accused and investigation was taken up. During the investigation, dog squad was pressed into service and the police dog indicated the presence of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the scene of offence. Hence a search was launched for tracing accused Nos. 1 and 2. The accused were arrested on 20-8-1996. On interrogation, they gave voluntary statement leading to the discovery of murder weapon i. e. a sickle as well as bloodstained clothes of the assailants which were seized under mahazar. Apart from this, the usual procedure like holding spot mahazar, inquest proceedings, etc. , were conducted in the presence of independent mahazar witnesses. The bloodstained articles were sent to FSL for examination and statement of various witnesses were recorded. The body was subjected to autopsy. On completion of the investigation and after receipt of all the reports including the autopsy report, the FSL report, charge sheet came to be filed against these three accused for an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC.

(3.) ON committal and after going through the charge sheet materials, a charge was framed against all the three accused for an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC. As the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the learned Sessions Judge, Karwar tried them in. S. C. No. 23/1997. On appreciation of the entire evidence, though the Trial Court gave benefit of doubt to the accused No. 3, it found the materials against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 (the appellants herein) sufficient to indicate that they were the authors of the crime and consequently proceeded to record a finding of guilt against these appellants for an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal.