HONURAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appral by Boya Honnurappa and Boya Chinnappa, who figured as Accused No. 1 and Accused No 2 respectively in the Court below and who have been convicted and sentenced as under. Accused 1 has been convicted under Section 44-7-I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer three month' rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted under section 324-I.P.C. and sentenced to three yean' rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accused 2 hat been convicted under Section 447 I.P.G. and sentenced to suffer three months' rigorous imprisonment. He has further been convicted under Section 302 I.P.O. aud sentenced to imprisonment for life. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Two others, by names Boya Pakeerappa and Boya Dommodu, were also tried along with the two appeailants and they figured as Accused No. 3 and Accused No. 4. They have, however, been acquitted of the charges under Sections 447 and 302 I.P.C. Accused 3 has been acquitted because of his age, which was eleven years on the date of the conviction. The trial Judge gave him the benefit of the provisions of section 83 I.P.C. as he was under twelve years of age and had not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct. Therefore, although the learned Judge was satisfied that Accused No. 3 was guilty of the charges levelled againt him be had to be acquitted because of his immaturity. As regards Accused -4 however the learned Judge found that he was merely a cooly who had gone to work for wages at the instance of Accused 1 to 3 and so he could not have had the necessary mens rea to commit the offence of Criminal trespass punishable under Section 447 I.P.C. So he acquitted him of that charge. The learned trial Judge did not record any finding on the third charge which was framed against all the (our accused including Accused-4 under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. But it must be taken that the learned Judge had acquitted Accused-4 of that charge because the offence did not disclose any act on his part by which he could be saddled with constructive liability under Section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. He was merely present at the sceneploughing the land for cooly.

(2.) The first two charges framed against the accused were as fellows:-- "Firstly:-That you accused Nos. 1 to 4 on the 10th day of May 1963 at about 8-30 a. m., did commit criminal trespass by entering into the land called Lakshmamma Chenu of Boya Benakal Nagappa of Honnur village with the intention of causing the death ot said Boya Benagal Nagappa and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 447 ot the Indian Penal Code...,........ . Secondly:-That you accused 1 to 3 at the same time and place and in he course of the same transaction referred to in Charge No. 1 did commit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Boya Benakil Nagappa and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 ot the Indian Penal Code................ The learned Judge convicted A-1 to A-2 of criminal trespass. He, however, acquitted A-1 of the charge of murder, but convicted him instead under section 324 I.P.C. for having caused hurt with a dangerous weapon to the deceased Nagappa. As regards A-2, however, the learned Judge relying upon the direct evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 who deposed that it was A-2 who had Struck the fatal blow on the head of the deceased with an axe, convicted A-2 under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life, The case for the prosecution is briefly as follows: P.W. 1 (Boya Devamma) is the widow of the deceased. She was his second wife. His first wife Chennamma was alive at that time, but as he had no children the deceased bad married P.W. 1 as his second wife and she begot two daughters but two son that she bore, died. So at the time of the occurrence she had two daughteri aged eight and ten. A-1 to A-3 are brothers and they are the sons of one Honnappa, the elder brother of the deceased, A-4 was a cooly working under A-1 to A-3. When the deceased and Honnappa were joint, they had purchased a land known as 'Lakshmamma Chepu' in the year 1956. That land was the bone of contention between A.1 to A-3 (the sons of Honnappa) and the deceased. Sometime after 1956, Honnappa and the deceased partitioned their properties and in that partition 'Lakahmamma Chenu fell to the share of Honnappa, the father of A-1 to A-3, but there appears to have been some dispute over this land between the vendors on the one side and the deceased wad the vendees on the other. It appears from the evidence of P. W. 1 that because of that dispute, Honnappa told the deceased to take back that land in exchange for some other land. The deceased agreed to this proposal and so there was a re-partition in the year 1959, which is evidenced by a registered partition deed, Ex. P. 1 dated 22-12-1959. This shows that 'Lakshmma Chennu was allotted to the deceased. P. W. 1 further deposed thot ever since the partition her husband was in possession of the land and was enjoying it. Although it does not appear that Honnappa, the father of A-1 to A-3, raised any disputenor gave any trouble over this 'Lakhamma Chennu A-1 to A-3 were demanding from the deceased that as he had only two daughters, thcte was no need for him to have so much property and that he should part with 'Lakshmamma Chennu' and some other lands so that A-1 to A-3 might enjoy them' The deceased refused.to entertain any sueh proposal and told his brother's sons; A-1 to A-3, that be would not part with the properties during bis life-time what ever might happen afterwards. P.W. 1 stated in chiet examination that because of recalcitrant attitude of deceased, A-1 to A-3 were threatening him with dire consequences. That was the background to the occurrence which took place on 10-5-1963 at 8.30 A. M. on the morning of that day the deceased sent two coolies Nagabhushanam and Mareppa, examined as P. Ws. 2 to 3, to Lakshamamma Chenu, to do agricultural operations with two Guntakars ('guntakas is a type of harrow). Having sent them to that filed just after sunrise, the deceased said he would, also go to some other field where sheep had been penned and thereafter go to 'Lakshmamma Cheanu. So saying he left his house' Then we have the evidence of P. Ws, 2 and 3 as to what happened at the field it self. The field is about a mile from the village Honnur in which the parties were living at the time. We shall set out the evidence of P. W. 2 in his own words: - "On the day of the occurrence my self and Mareppa (P. W. 3) hadgone to Lakhmamma land to plough (Guntaka), at the instance of The deceared. The sun was a bara high in the east when we left home Myself and Mareppa were ploughing (Guntika) in the land .Sometime later accused 1 to 4 came with one Guntika to that land" A-1 got the Guntika ready and askcd A-4 to plough the land. Mareppa (P. W. 3) obstructed saying that it should not be done A-1 said why care for him, proceed to plough. Mareppa came to me to assist me. By them the deceased came there. By then A 4 had ploughed one round. The deceased stood obstructing A-4's Guntika and asked him to stop. A-1 took o ff the Guntika palugu (the iron portion of the harrow) and hit him on the back. The deceased fell down on his right side. A 2 brought anaxe from the fence nrar by and hit him on the head near right eye. He brought the axe from the fence about 10 yards off. A-3 hit him on the shoulder and on the kneel with a stick. A-1 then hit the deceased with the palugu on the back of the head. A-2 ran after Mareppa (P. W. 3) saving be was looking on and thus chased him off. A-1 chased me off. I ran towards the village.

(3.) I went to P. W. 1 and reported that her husband had been beaten down 'by the four accused by stick, axe and palugu. Weeping she came with me to the field. The deceased would not speak. He had bleeding injuries. Mareppa was there weeping. She asked Mareppa and he too said who attacked. We were asked to stay on and' P. W. 1 went to the V. M. She returned with V. M. and others. She gave Ex. P. 2. M. O. 1 was the stick A-3 had. The Police examined me at the inquest.''