R PUTTA @ SATHYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is filed by accused No.2 against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Kodagu, at Madikeri, in S.C.No.74/2004, dated 31st October 2013.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 26.8.2004, there was a protest against the arrest of Smt.Uma Bharathi of BJP leader and in that connection, a bundh was called for in Kushalnagar of Coorg district also. On that day, there was some clash between accused Nos.1 and 2 and PW-1 M.V.Manjunath. In that background, on 27.8.2004 around 8.20 p.m. when PW-1 and PW-3 Dinesha were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-09-E-7419 near a hotel by name Devo Prasad in Kushalnagar, a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-19-4696 came on that road and accused 1 and 2 got down from the vehicle and called PWs.1 and 3. PWs.1 and 3 stopped the vehicle. At that time, accused No.1 asked accused No.2 to bring the revolver which had been kept in the Tata Sumo vehicle. Accused No.2 brought the revolver and gave it accused No.1 and accused No.1 fired a shot which hit the right thigh of PW-3 and the second shot hit the right hand and the third shot misfired. Accused No.1 also told PW-3 that he could not play before him and he was not a match to his rowdism. So saying, accused No.1 fired shots at PW-3. This incident is seen by Arun, Amruth and Shekaregowda. Thereafter, PW-1 took PW-3 to the Government Hospital at Kushalnagar. On the basis of the complaint lodged in Crime No.119/2004 for the offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148 and 307 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, the accused were charge sheeted.

(3.) Before the trial Court, on behalf of prosecution, 41 witnesses were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-87 and MOs.1 to 11 were got marked. The statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After enquiry, the trial Court acquitted accused No.3 of all the offences and accused No.1 and 2 for the offences under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, but convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 326 and 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week for the offence under Section 341 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo RI for one year for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo RI for two years for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. However, it ordered that the sentences should run concurrently. As against this, appellant-accused No.2 has filed this appeal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned SPP for the respondent.