SRINIVASA ALIAS VASU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant (accused No.3) is the son of accused 1 and 2. They were tried for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 506 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused 1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 506 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No.3 for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and acquitted him for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Therefore, he is before this Court.

(2.) I have heard Sri Y.D.Harsha, learned counsel for accused and learned Government Advocate for State.

(3.) IT is the case of prosecution that accused 1 and 2 are parents of accused No.3. PW1 Ramegowda is the younger brother of accused No.1. They had dispute regarding cultivation of certain portion of land granted to their father. Accused No.1 was cultivating the land on behalf of PW1 and he was giving share of the produce. This arrangement did not continue for long time. PW1 asked accused No.1 not to cultivate the portion of land fallen to his share. On 18.4.2006, PW1 had taken elders to the land and requested accused No.1 not to cultivate the portion of land fallen to the share of PW1. The elders namely PW3 Siddegowda S/o Late Siddegowda and PW4 Siddegowda S/o Marigowda advised accused No.1 not to cultivate the portion of land which had fallen to the share of PW1. However, accused did not heed to their request. Accused No.3 is alleged to have assaulted PW1 with chopper and caused injury to him with an intention and knowledge, if he had caused the death of PW1, he would have held guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC. In view of acquittal of accused for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, the following points that would arise for consideration.