PADMANABHIAH, J. - (1.)The present appellant, who was accused 1 in Mandya Sessions Case No. 7 of 1955, stands convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years by the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore Division, for an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and the case for the prosecution was that he (appellant accused) on the night of 21-1-1955 assaulted his co-brother Manche Gowda alias Kenge Gowda with an axe M. O. 1 at Hullahalli in Malavalli Taluk and that he thus caused grievous hurt to the deceased punishable under Section 396 I.P.C. Along with the appellant, there were 10 other persons who were also arraigned as accused, the case against them being that they intentionally caused the death of the said Manche Gowda alias Kenge Gowda in furtherance of their common intention and that they thereby committed an offence unler Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. Accused 2 to 11 have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore we will concern ourselves only with the conviction of the present appellant.
(2.)The main point that arises for consideration is whether the guilt has been brought home to the appellant. From a perusal of the evidence, it appears to us that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. Admittedly there is no direct evidence to implicate the appellant with the offence alleged. The conviction has been based on some unsatisfactory circumstantial evidence and on the alleged admissions of the appellant. The materials made use of by the learned Sessions Judge for convicting the appellant are Ext. P. 10, an alleged statement of the appellant given before P.W 4. the Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police Station at Malavalli, Ext P-30, an alleged confession made by the accused in the presence of P. W. 22 the then First Class Magistrate, Mandya, and on the seizure of a blood-stained axe M. O.1 from the accused.
(3.)We will now proceed to consider the probative value of these statements and circumstances and see whether on the basis of these materials, the conviction ot the appellant can be sustained. In our view the learned Sessions Judge was not right in convicting the appellant on these doubtful materials.
;