G B UMESH Vs. STATE BY SAKALESHPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased is one Karthik. He was employed as a watchman by PW.1 in his estate. About 1 ' months prior to the incident, that is on 17-2-2011, at about 10.00 p.m. when the deceased was on guard duty at the coffee estate, four persons came there to steal pepper. The deceased accosted them. They shouted at him that he is becoming a nuisance in their plucking of pepper. Thereafter one of them held Karthik, the other assaulted with a Machchu on his right leg. The third person assaulted with a Machchu on his right cheek, on both hands, on both thighs and the left knee. The fourth person assaulted him with his hands. They then threatened that if he continues to stop them, they will kill him. Thereafter they went away. That on 18-2-2011 at about 6.30 a.m., in the morning, two of the workmen in that estate namely, Krishnamurthy and Vijay came and saw him. They immediately telephoned the owner about the injuries sustained on the deceased. Thereafter, PW.1 shifted the deceased to the hospital at Sakaleshpur. The statement of the deceased was recorded at about 8.50 a.m. in the presence of the Doctor. The same was reduced into writing by PW.18 the PSI. Thereafter the case was registered against one Umesh and Others for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 504, 341,323, 326, 506 read with 34 of IPC. Investigation was taken up. Thereafter, yet another statement of the deceased was recorded in terms of Ex.P-19 on 18-2-2011 at about 3.00 p.m., by PW.18, who is the PSI, in the presence of the Doctor PW.11. Subsequently, the deceased died on 19-2-2011 at about 8.30 a.m. Section 302 was also added to the FIR. On investigation, the charge sheet was laid against two accused for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 504, 382 and 302 read with 34 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(2.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses and marked 34 exhibits and 9 Material Objects. By the impugned order, both the accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 504, 382, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced as follows:

(3.) Sri Amar Correa, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the entire case of the prosecution is faulty. That the accused have been wrongly implicated in this case. That there is no material to suggest that the accused were identified by the deceased. That merely on hearsay basis, both have been added as accused and have been wrongly convicted.