MAHESWAR GOUDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants along with seventeen others stood charged with the offence under Section 148. I.P.C., for having formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing the death of one Rama Murty Choudhury. They stood further charged under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C., for having caused the death of the said Rama Murty Choudhury in prosecution of their common object. Appellant in Ladu Das, Appellant 11 Gangadhar Gouda and Appellant 12 Udaya Behera were alternatively charged under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C., for having caused the death of the said Rama Murty Choudhury in furtherance of their common intention. Appellant 6 Somanath alias Khadal Gouda. Appellant 11 Gaugadhar Gouda and Appellant 19 Jagannath Behera stood further charged under Section 323, I.P.C., with having caused hurt to PW 4 Gajendra Choudhury. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused persons of the charge under Section 148, I.P.C., but convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C., and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. He also convicted Appellants 6, 11 and 19 under Section 323, I. P. C., and sentenced each of them to undergo R. I. for six months.

(2.) PROSECUTION case was that on 23 -9 -1975 morning while the deceased Rama Murty Choudhury was taking bath in a tank, locally known as Naliabandha, the accused persons being armed with deadly weapons went there in a body and attacked him with lathis and other weapons. As a result of the assault, the deceased fell down with bleeding injuries all over his body. His son (PW 4) and wife (PW 2) ran to his rescue, but they were prevented by the accused persons. They, however, managed to remove the deceased to the verandah of one Igini Patra. But there also the accused persons committed further assault on the deceased as a result of which he died on the same day about 12.30 p.m. in Kural Dispensary where he had been admitted for treatment.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge relying mainly on the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4 convicted the appellants as aforesaid. It is urged in this appeal that the order of conviction is contrary to law and against the weight of evidence on the record.