EMPEROR Vs. SADEPPA GIREPPA MUTGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are appeals by the eight accused against their conviction by the Sessions Judge of Belgaum of the offence of murder. They were sentenced to transportation for life. There is also a reference by the learned Judge against the verdict of the jury acquitting the accused on the charge of rioting, the learned Judge considering the verdict perverse. It is obvious that there is no substance in the reference, because the charge of rioting and the charge of murder depend on the same evidence, and, therefore, the really serious question is whether the accused were guilty of murder.

(2.) THE jury, as I have said, returned a verdict of not guilty on the charge of rioting, which must mean that they disbelieved the prosecution evidence. Three of the jury happened to be clerks in the District Court or the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court, and as soon as they gave their verdict the learned Judge stated that he considered the verdict perverse, and declined to accept it. THEn they were asked to give their opinions as assessors on the more serious charge, and they agreed in holding accused No.1 guilty under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, and the others not guilty, and they stated that they believed Payappa and Basaya but not the other witnesses. It is quite obvious that in point of fact they could not have believed Payappa, because if they had, they would have been bound to convict the accused of rioting, and further there is no justification on the evidence of Payappa for distinguishing between accused No.1 and the other accused. Moreover, one of the other witnesses, Chandrappa, tells practically the same story as Payappa, and it would be absurd to believe Payappa and disbelieve Chandrappa. I think this opinion of the assessors, that Payappa and Basaya were to be believed, was a sop to the learned Judge, who had commented favourably on their evidence. THE real question in the case is whether the evidence of Payappa and Chandrappa is to be believed.

(3.) THE first of the Kakeri witnesses, Bhimapa, (exhibit 16), agrees with Payappa up to the point where they passed Margankop, and then he says: "I saw a hundred people coming running from Margankop side." At that point the learned Judge apparently allowed him to be cross-examined, because it was suggested that in the lower Court he had said "seven people"; but, when the Kanarese word was looked at, it was 'bahala', which, the learned Judge says, means 'many'; so that really there is no conflict between his evidence in the Sessions Court and in the Committing Magistrate's Court. Obviously, when he says 'a hundred people' he means 'many'. Nobody suggests that he counted them. So his story is that many people came out from Margankop. THEn he says: Before Annappa was beaten we two Kakeri men ran away.