SOMU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 6 in S.C.No.108 of 2012 on the file of the Fast Track Court at Shivamogga. Totally seven accused were arraigned before the Trial Court, out of them, accused No.7 was acquitted by the Trial Court. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 28.08.2014 convicted accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 324, 506(2), 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully looked into the oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court and also examined the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

(3.) Sri R.B.Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contends before this Court that though there is zero offence so far as accused Nos.3 to 6 are concerned, the Trial Court with the help of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code convicted accused Nos.3 to 6 for all the above said offences which is erroneous and illegal. He also contends before this Court that even the so-called eye witness particularly the injured witness has concluded the presence of accused Nos.3 to 6 at the time of the incident or at any point of time. He further contends before the Court that the Court cannot draw any inference under Section 149 or under Section 34 of I.P.C. When such being the case, the overt act of accused No.1 is that, he assaulted the deceased Ramappa on his head so far as accused No.2 is concerned, he only assaulted PW-6 causing simple injuries to him. There is no material to show that there is any pre-meeting of minds of the accused persons. The incident happened in a spur of moment for some quarrel that took place between the two groups, PW- 1 and others on one side and accused Nos.1 and 2 only on the other side. Therefore, when neither Section 149 or Section 34 of I.P.C. can be invoked, the accused persons cannot be convicted jointly for the above said alleged offences. The learned counsel also contended that considering the situation of the case and the single blow given and the injuries sustained by the deceased Ramappa and only one blow that has been dealt with by accused No.1, no other injuries are sustained by the deceased, the offence ought not to have been held to be proved under Section 302 of I.P.C. but at the most, it would fall under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. Therefore, he requested to release the accused persons in considering period of imprisonment already undergone or to modify the sentence so far as the accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case and he contended that there is absolutely no evidence in so far as accused Nos.3 to 6 are concerned and they may be acquitted from the charges leveled against them.