SRIDHARASWAMY @ SWAMY, Vs. STATE BY BELLAVI POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-

(2.) The accused pleaded not guilty and they came to be tried for the aforesaid offences. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses, marked 11 documents as at Ex.P.1 to P.11 along with 9 material objects. By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned judge of the Trial Court convicted only the accused 1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Sections-144, 148, 324, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section-144, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half years for an offence under Section-148, rigorous imprisonment for two years for an offence under Section-324, imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each for an offence punishable under Section-302 of IPC, in default, to undergo imprisonment for 2 years.

(3.) Shri. B.A. Ramesh Babu, learned Advocate appearing for the accused-appellants firstly contended that though the incident did occur at 8.30 p.m on 14.07.2008, complaint was lodged at 3.00 a.m on 15.07.2008 and hence, there is an inordinate delay in lodging complaint. Secondly he contended that eyewitnesses namely, PWs. 1, 2, 13 & 14 are close relatives of the deceased and they being the persons belonging to the same community of the deceased, they are all interested witnesses and that they visited the spot after hearing about the death of the deceased and hence, they cannot be treated as eyewitnesses to the incident. Due to previous enmity between the deceased and the accused, the accused were falsely implicated in the crime. Thirdly, he contended that the deceased Paramesha was notorious person and a rowdy sheeter and had several enemies in the locality and hence, some other people had killed him and thrown his dead body in the scene of occurrence. Fourthly he contended that PWs. 8 & 15 who are witnesses for recovery mahazar Ex.P.5, for recovery of the alleged weapons, have turned hostile and hence, the prosecution has not established the recovery of the weapons. Sixthly he contended that the accused persons have inflicted only one blow on the deceased, without having knowledge that such assault would definitely cause death of the deceased and hence, if this Court were to come to the conclusion that the accused are guilty and uphold the judgment of the Trial Court, a lenient view may be taken and the offence committed by the accused may be reduced from Section- 302 to 304-I. Lastly he contended that even though there was material whatsoever against the accused for the offence punishable under Section- 3(ii) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the learned judge of the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offence.