DINESH SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are arising out of a common judgment of conviction and sentence. Since common questions of fact and law arise in both the appeals, they are taken up together for final disposal in order to avoid repetition of fact and law.

(2.) Crl.A.No.645/2016 is preferred by appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 whereas Crl.A.No.1501/2015 is by appellants/accused Nos.4 and 6. The appellants in both the appeals being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru in S.C.No.60/2011 dated 25.11.2015 wherein accused Nos.1 to 3 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 read with 34 of IPC,1860 and Sections 25 and 27 read with 3 of ARMS Act,1959 and accused Nos.4 and 6 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 202 read with 34 of IPC, 1860. Accordingly, they have been sentenced. By the same judgment accused No.5-Shiva Prakash and accused No.9-Ravi Shukwani are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 201, 202 read with 34 of IPC and 25 and 27 read with 3 of Arms Act, 1959. The appellants/accused person are challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment and order of conviction. Hence they have preferred this appeal.

(3.) The brief facts of the prosecution case is, the complaint is lodged by one Prasanna; he has stated that he is residing in the address mentioned in the complaint and is working under a Civil Contractor by name Nithin. On 09.04.2009, as usual after completing his work he was proceeding towards his house on the motor bike bearing Reg.No.KA-21-J-9561 and when he was coming from Dosa Camp towards Britto Lane Junction, at about 8.15 pm when he reached at Britto Lane junction, he saw a person who was lying on the ground, his legs were held by two youths and said person was crying. In the meanwhile, he slowed down his bike and asked both of them as to what they were doing with him. At that time, the person who wore black coloured shirt, fired at that person with a pistol but it did not hit him. Panicking, the complainant, proceeded on his bike to some distance and looked back towards them. At that time, he saw the person who was holding the pistol, again firing on the said person with the pistol, thereafter, he moved his vehicle ahead and told the neighbours that, some quarrel was going on nearby junction and that a person was holding a pistol and asked them to make phone call but, they did not do and went inside. At the same time, he heard twice firing sound in the junction place. Again he came back on his motor bike towards junction place, there a women of the neighbouring house was standing and she asked him as to what was happening there and whose mobile it was which was ringing but he moved ahead without informing anything to her and he met a person by name Sathish Rao who is a doctor by profession and who is known to him at the junction place and informed him about the incident occurred in the junction place. The said person is doctor Sathish also told him that he also heard firing sound and made phone call to '100' the police control room over his mobile phone. In the meanwhile, police came to the spot and they informed the police about the incident and when police were searching around, it was learnt that a person was lying with bleeding injury at piyus home building car park, and when they reached there the person who was dragged by the assailants, succumbed to the injuries. At the spot, mobile phone, bullets, slippers, marker pen, hand kerchief and cap were lying. Those two assailants, for some reasons having enmity with the deceased fired at him and committed his murder. Out of two, one was wearing black coloured shirt who was a lean man and both the assailants were aged about 20-25 years old. If he would see them again, he would identify the assailants. Hence, he requested for legal action against the assailants. He came to know that deceased person was a lawyer by name Naushad.