LOKESH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment & Order of conviction and sentence dated 31.7.2006 passed by the Fast Track Court -IX, Bangalore City in S.C. No. 75/2005 is called in question in this appeal by the convicted accused. By the impugned Judgment & Order, the trial Court has convicted both the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC.

(2.) During the pendency of this appeal before this Court, Accused No. 2/appellant No. 2 viz., Anand @ Bond @ Narasimhegowda expired and therefore the appeal filed by him abates. Consequently appeal filed by Accused No. 1 -Lokesh @ Loki @ Mariyappa only, is heard.

(3.) Case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Prashanth is the son of PWs.2 and 3; PW.4 is the sister of the deceased; Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were known to the deceased; Accused NO.1 was residing in the very locality wherein the deceased was living; However Accused No. 2 was living in a different locality; the deceased was a auto driver and so also Accused No. 2 was a driver; Accused No. 1 used to pressurize the deceased that he should magnify and blow up his personality so that the boys in the locality would give respect to him (Accused No. 1); however the deceased had not heeded to the request of Accused No. 1; Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were of the opinion that the deceased had given certain wrong information about the conduct and character of accused No. 2 to the owner of the autorickshaw which was being driven by Accused No. 2 and hence the owner of the autorickshaw did not entrust the autorickshaw to Accused No. 2 for driving subsequently i.e., after some period; in that regard, there were differences of opinion between the accused and the deceased; Accused No. 1 had questioned the attitude of the deceased in allegedly giving wrong impression of the Accused No. 2 to the owner of the autorickshaw; The deceased did not fall in line with Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in their activities; On 11.3.2004, at about 10.15 p.m. Accused No. 3 (Juvenile offender) came to the house of the deceased wherein PWs.2,3 and 4 were also present; at that point of time, the deceased was talking with his family members including PWs.2,3 and 4; Accused No. 3 after coming to the house of the deceased, asked the deceased to accompany him and told him that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were calling him (deceased); the deceased accompanied Accused No. 3; after the deceased went for certain distance, the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 started quarrelling with the deceased; Accused No. 1 assaulted the deceased with chopper - MO.1 and Accused No. 2 assaulted the deceased with the knife - MO.6; because of such assault, the deceased fell on the heap of sand which was stocked for construction of building of some other person; PWs.2, 3 and 4 being suspicious about the conduct of Accused No. 3 calling the deceased to talk with Accused Nos. 1 and 2, had in the meanwhile, followed the deceased and saw the incident in the street light standing about 20 feet away from the place of incident in question; Immediately after the incident, the accused fled away from the scene; PWs.2, 3 and 4 with the help of PWs.14 and 15 shifted the injured to the Victoria hospital for treatment, but unfortunately the deceased succumbed to the injuries at 11.15 p.m.; The doctor has opined that the deceased was brought dead; When the dead body was in the mortuary, the Police personnel - PWs.17 and 19 came to the hospital; a death memo was sent to the Police Station; PW.19 recorded the first information given by PW.2 as per Ex. P3 at about 1.00 a.m. on 12.3.2004, based on which Crime No. 103/2004 came to be registered in Hanumanthnagar Police Station by PW.19 - Inspector of Police. PW.19 completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.