MAHADEV PRASAD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who was arrayed as Accused No.1 before the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru in SC No.262/2012 has called in question the judgment of conviction dated 8.1.2018 and order of sentence dated 10.1.2018, convicting the appellant/accused No.1 for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 324 of IPC. Amongst 9 accused persons, the appellant/accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC with default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months; and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC. The trial Court though tried as many as 9 accused persons, but acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 9 for want of evidence against them.

(2.) We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor for the State. We have carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also perused the judgment of the trial Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant at the initial stages very vociferously submitted before this court that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and not properly considered the contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the eye-witnesses and also not considered that the weapons which are seized from the custody of the accused were actually not stained with any blood. Instead of giving benefit of doubt, the trial Court has wrongly convicted accused No.1/appellant herein. He has also contended that common allegations have been made against all the accused persons invoking the provisions of Section 149 of IPC. When the other accused persons were acquitted, the appellant/accused No.1 would have also been treated on par with other accused by giving the benefit of doubt, and the trial Court ought to have acquitted him also.