BASAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is arrayed as accused No. 1 in Special Case No. 88/2010 before the District & Sessions Judge, Yadgir along with accused No. 2, a juvenile accused by name Sangappa s/o Bhimaraya Anel who is none other than full blood brother of the appellant. The appellant accused was tried for various offences i.e. under Sections 435, 504, 304, Part-II R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the "Act"). Accused No. 1 (appellant) was convicted for the offence under section 435 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default to pay fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Further appellant was also convicted for the offence under section 504 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The appellant was also convicted for the offence under section 304, Part-II read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of six months. The Trial Court also convicted him for the offence punishable under sections 3(1) (x) of the Act, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of three months, as the offence under section 304, Part-II is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years, therefore, invoking provisions under section 3 (2) (v), appellant was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of one year simple imprisonment.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the said judgment, appellant accused No. 1 who was tried by the Sessions Judge, preferred this appeal. The case has been split up against accused No. 2 because he was juvenile accused and his case is now being tried by the concerned Juvenile Justice Board.

(3.) Therefore, this Court has to confine itself with regard to the judgment and sentence so far it relates to the appellant so as to find out whether the trial Court has properly appreciated, oral and documentary evidence on record, in order to draw an inference that accused No. 1 has committed the said offence for which he was convicted and sentenced.