SUNIL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Nos.1 and 3 in S.C.No.132/2011 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Davanagere, are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 11/7/2013, convicting them for the offences punishable under Ss. 448 , 504 , 323 , 506 and 306 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ' IPC ') and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months each for the offences punishable under Ss. 448 , 504 , 323 and 506 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 of IPC with fine of Rs.50,000.00 each, with default sentences.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, about 20 days prior to the incident i.e. on 2/5/2011, PW.11 had parked his motorcycle in front of the house of accused No.1. Taking advantage of the said parking, accused No.1 said to have stolen the petrol from the motorcycle. PW.11 picked up quarrel with accused No.1 regarding stealing of the petrol. Accused No.1 on the assumption that the said information was given by the deceased-Basavaraj to PW.11, he along with accused Nos.2 and

(3.) had criminally trespassed into the house of the deceased, abused him in filthy language and provoked him to break public peace. The accused have assaulted the deceased, voluntarily caused hurt and abetted commission of suicide. They have also criminally intimidated him of taking away his life and liberty, and as a result of which, he consumed pesticides and committed suicide on the very same day. Therefore, it is stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the above said offences. 3. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased, who filed the first information as per Ex.P1. The inquest was conducted as per Ex.P4. The Post Mortem examination was held and the report is as per Ex.P6. The spot mahazar as per Ex.P2 was drawn, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and the charge sheet came to be filed for the above said offences. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused. During pendency of the trial, accused No.2 had died and the criminal case against him was dismissed as abated.