HANUMANTHAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused Nos.1 to 4 in S.C. No.156/98 who are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC have filed this appeal questioning the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. All the accused are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution in brief is that, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are brothers interse and they are the sons of Byraiah (original accused No.5). Accused No.4 is the sister of accused Nos.1 to 3 and daughter of accused No.5. During the pendency of Sessions Case No.156/98 before the trial Court, accused No.5 expired and consequently the case against him stood abated. P.Ws.8, 9 and 10 are the sons of late Channegowda. Deceased Chandra Shekar is the son of PW.10 (Mr. Nanjegowda). The dispute existed as on the date of incident between the sons of Channegowda (i.e., PWs.8, 9 and 10) on one side and the accused on the other in respect of certain agricultural land; the accused stated to have cultivated the said inam land as tenants and they have filed application for grant of occupancy rights in their favour; the sons of Channegowda namely, PWs.8, 9 and 10 had purchased the said land and hence they had also filed an application before the concerned authorities for re -grant of land. Thus, there was a dispute between the accused on one side and PWs.8, 9 and 10 on the other in respect of the said agricultural land.

(3.) SRI Venkata Reddy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that absolutely no valid material is found as against accused Nos.2 to 4; the evidence of the eye witnesses PWs.5, 6 and 8 is inconsistent and suffers from contradictions and omissions; the plain reading of examination -in -chief of these witnesses clearly reveal that none of the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC; the trial court has gravely erred in convicting accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offences under Section 302 of IPC inasmuch as the deceased died because of a single blow by accused No.1; the material is not sufficient to prove the common object between the accused; even if the entire case of the prosecution is believable, at the most the offence said to have been committed by accused No.1 may fall under Section 304 part I of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC; he further submits that the deceased Chandrashekar was permanent resident of Talukere village and he was living with his parents; however, he had come about 8 to 10 days prior to the incident to Muniyur village and was staying in the house of accused No.2. In view of the same, Sri Venkata Reddy submits that deceased was not the target of the accused and consequently there could not have been common intention on the part of the accused to do away with the life of Chandrashekar.