SONNEGOUDA AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.2.2010 passed in S.C. No. 365/2007 on the file of Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court -IX at Bangalore. By the impugned judgment, accused Nos. 2 to 4 and 6 to 10 were tried and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120 -B, 302 r/w 149 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each and in default to undergo imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 143 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ - each, in default to undergo imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/ - each, in default to undergo imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default to undergo imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 120 -B IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/ - each for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w 149 IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is as under: - -

(3.) SRI . Ravi B. Naik, learned Senior Counsel taking us through the evidence on record has submitted that there are no other eyewitnesses to the occurrence, except PW -20 -injured Manjunath, who lodged the complaint against 4 to 5 unknown persons. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that it is accused Nos. 1 to 10 who inflicted fatal blow upon the deceased Santosh and caused injuries to PW -20. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of PW -20 regarding the injuries suffered by PW -20 and as such, it is not safe to place reliance on solitary testimony of PW -20 to base conviction without corroboration, under such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge committed grave error by convicting the accused. Hence, the learned counsel sought to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and to acquit all the accused of all the charges levelled against them. The learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in : (2003) 1 SCC 465 in the case of Joseph v. State of Kerala to buttress his argument.