- (1.)In this case there is no appearance on behalf of the appellants, but we have heard the Government Pleader for the Crown.
(2.)The appellant No. 1 was the wife of one Giriyappa, but was in illicit relations with the accused No. 2, Mohidin. The appellant No. 3 Irrappa was a go-between. They have been convicted of attempting to murder or abetting the attempt to murder Giriyappa, the husband of the 1st appellant, whom the appellant injured by mixing dhatura with his food, having received this dhaturu from accused Nos. 2 and 3.
(3.)The evidence leaves no doubt as to the guilt of the accused Nos. 2 and 3 who have properly been convicted of the abetment of the attempt to murder. But the sentences passed upon them seem to us to be excessive. We reduce the sentences in each case to "five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 and 109 and 328 and 109, the sentences to be concurrent.