GOLLA HANUMAPPA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The eight accused in this case were all charged with the offence of rioting under Section 148, Indiad Penal Code. The second accused was farther charged with culpable homicide amounting to murder under section. 302; the sixth and fourth accused with causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon under Section 326. The accused against whom there was no charge of murder or causing grievous hurt as the immediate perpetrators of those offences were, however, charged with the commission of the offences constructively under Section 149 of the Code.

(2.) The facts of the case are clearly set forth in the judgment of the Sessions Judge and we consider it unnecessary to repeat them, The cause of the rioting was an encounter between prosecution witnesses Nos. 1 3 and 4 and probably also 5 on the one side and one Narasakka, the mother of accused Noe. 6 to 8 on the other side, A case of abduction of one Narasamma against accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 initiated by the prosecution fifth witness, her husband, was pending at the time of the encounter. One Narasappa according to the prosecution was helping the prosecution fifth witness in the abduction case, The prosecution witnesses referred to above were going from their village for sowing their fields on the morning-of the day of the offence. The encounter with Narasakka took place just outside the village. Abusive words and a quarrel ensued between the prosecution party and Narasakka, According to the prosecution all the eight accused went up to the place where the quarrel was going on. A fight ensued between them and the prosecution party in which very serous injuries were inflicted on Narasanna who died in consequence. Prosecution witnesses Nos. 3 and 4 also sustained serious injuries and prosecution first witness was also injured. Some of the accused also received some injuries. The lower Court acquitted all the accused of murder. It also acquitted them of noting holding that "what happened was a sudden fight," that is to say, apparently, that it was not proved that the accused acted in pursuance of a common object and were therefore not members of an unlawful assembly. But the Judge found that the evidence established that all the accused were guilty of causing hurt and accused Nos. 2 and 6 of causing grievous hurt. His judgment does not show what injuries each of the accused inflicted and on which of the prosecution witnesses, except with respect to the sixth accused. According to him it is not certain who dealt the fatal blow which, killed Narasanna. He proceeds "Though it is not certain that the second accused dealt the fatal blow, he certainly took a leading parti in the fight. I think there is no reasonable doubt too that the sixth accused was particularly active and that he caused grievous barb to prosecution third witness." He convicted all the accused under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, and the second and the sixth accused under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, also. Accused Nog. 1 to 3, 4 and 6 have preferred this appeal.

(3.) The evidence as to the details of the fight and as be the accused who inflicted the fatal blow on the deceased Nairasanna or caused grievous barb to prosecution witness No. 3 is extremely discrepant and some of the witnesses for the prosecution gave different accounts on different occasions before the trial of the case in the Sessions Court. We are unable be confirm the Sessions Judge s finding that it was the sixth accused that caused grievous hurt to the third accused. Nor are we able to decide on the evidence whose act caused the death of Narasanna. We are, however, of opinion, differing from the Sessions Judge, that the evidence is sufficient be prove that all the accused were members of an unlawful assembly and were guilty of rioting and that they were all responsible for the injuries inflicted on several prosecution witnesses in the course of the fight. The cause of the quarrel already mentioned was the deceased Narasinna s helping the prosecution fifth witness in the abduction case and acting against accused Nos 6, 2 and 3 who were the accused in that case. Alt the accused espoused their cause and joined in the quarrel. We are quite unable to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the existence of a common object before the fight began is necessary ho justify the conviction of the accused of rioting. It is quite enough that accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 adopted the common object of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 to cause hurt to the prosecution party for helping Nurasanna. It is also immaterial that the idea of injuring them was conceived suddenly after the accused went to the scene of offence where Narasakka, bad already encountered the prosecution patty. We agree with Sessions Judge that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 are proved be have been present and to have taken part in the fight. We also agree that the second and sixth accused took the most prominent part in it.