NAGAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 12-8-1999, passed in S. C. No. 76/1997 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Raichur. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted A. 1 and A. 2 for the offences under Sections 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life with fine and default clause. By the same judgment, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted A. 3 to A. 8 of the offences with which they stood charged. While A. 1 and A. 2 have challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 900/99, the State has assailed the judgment of acquittal passed, acquitting A. 3 to A. 8 in Criminal Appeal No. 1073/1999. We have taken up both the appeals together for consideration by the consent of learned counsel on both sides, heard and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE Circle Inspector of Police of Devadurga Police Station laid a charge-sheet against eight accused persons alleging the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The fourth accused died during the trial. Hence, only A. 1 to A. 3 and A. 5 to A. 8 were tried for the offences stated supra. Since the accused denied the charges framed against them, Prosecution was called upon to prove the charges. So, in proof of the charges, the Prosecution has relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 8 and the documentary material Exs. P. 1 to P. 16 and Mos. 1 to 8. The accused persons have been examined as required under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and they denied the truth of the evidence let in by the Prosecution. As it was not a case of acquittal under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Sessions Judge called upon the accused to enter the defence. But the accused persons had not chosen to adduce any defence evidence. The learned trial Judge, after hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and the learned counsel for the accused persons, found A. 1 and A. 2 only guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and acquitted all other accused persons.

(3.) WE have heard the arguments of Sri R. B. Deshpande, learned counsel for the accused persons in both the appeals and Sri. B. C. Muddappa, the learned Additional S. P. P. , for the State. We have perused the evidence.