YAASIN Vs. STATE BY NAGAMANGALA TOWN POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.A.No.774/2012 is filed by accused No.1 and Crl.A.No.825/2012 is filed by accused No.2. Both the appeals are filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in S.C.No.16/2009 dtd. 2/7/2012 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, whereunder, the appellants accused Nos.1 and 2 have been convicted for the offence under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00 each.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that; on 8/6/2008, at 3.30 pm., PW1 Sri.Shivanna was in his furniture shop doing business. At that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 came to the furniture shop of PW1 in their goods autorickshaw bearing No.KA-54-349 stating that they are intending to purchase almirah and they took PW1 to godown situated on the back side of the shop where they gave him life threat, put hands in his pocket in order to rob cash. At that time, PW1 objected and resisted for the same. At that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 stabbed PW1 with knives on his stomach, chest and lower abdomen and attempted to commit his murder and the persons gathered there, took PW1 to Mallige hospital. Charge sheet has been filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Ss. 504, 393, 394 and 307 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC. The matter came to be committed to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court framed the charge for the offences under Ss. 393, 394 and 307 of IPC. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P19 and material objects as MOs.1 to 9. The statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 came to be recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the arguments on both sides, the learned Sessions Judge has formulated points for consideration and convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under sec. 307 of IPC and sentenced them as noted supra and acquitted them of the offences under Ss. 393 and 394 of IPC. The said judgment of conviction and order on sentence has been challenged in these two appeals by accused Nos.1 and 2.

(3.) Heard learned counsels for accused Nos.1 and 2 in both the appeals and learned High Government Pleader for the respondent State in both the appeals.