Arjun S/O Lakkappa Hurakannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

ARJUN S/O. LAKKAPPA HURAKANNAVAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF MUDENUR VILLAGE-583278, TQ. RAMADURG, DIST. BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S. PATIL AND SRI. GIRISH M. PATIL, ADVOCATES)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CPI, MUDHOL-587313, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P, AG OFFICE, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011.

¶17

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL S.P.P)

¶18

2 - CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN S.C.NO.50/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 17.08.2020 PASSED BY THE I-ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 504, 324, 326 AND 302 R/W. SECTION 149 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

¶20

IN CRL.A.NO.100260/2020: BETWEEN

¶21

LAKKAPPA S/O. LAXMAPPA DODAMANI, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALAGUNDI B.K. VILLAGE, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE.

¶22

NEELAWWA W/O. DAITHAPPA DODAMANI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE/HOUSE WIFE, R/O. ALAGUNDI B.K. VILLAGE, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE.

¶23

…APPELLANTS

¶24

(BY SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CPI, MUDHOL P.S., TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., AG OFFICE, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580003.

¶27

…RESPONDENT

¶28

(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL S.P.P)

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN SC NO.50/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DT 17/08/2020 PASSED BY I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI, JAMAKHANDI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143 OF IPC

¶30

3 - CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶31

AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.4 AND 5 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

¶32

IN CRL.A.NO.100261/2020: BETWEEN

¶33

1 . DAITHAPPA S/O. LAXMAPPA DODAMANI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALAGUNDI B.K. VILLAGE, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE.

¶34

SURESH S/O. LAKKAPPA DODAMANI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ALAGUNDI B.K. VILLAGE, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE.

¶35

…APPELLANTS

¶36

(BY SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CPI, MUDHOL P.S., TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., AG OFFICE, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580003

¶39

…RESPONDENT

¶40

(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL S.P.P)

¶41

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN SC NO.50/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 17/08/2020 PASSED BY I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI, JAMAKHANDI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 504, 324, 326 AND 302 R/W. SECTION 149 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS CONCERNED.

¶42

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

4 -

¶44

CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶45

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶46

CAV JUDGMENT

¶47

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

¶48

These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.08.2020 passed in S.C.No.50/2018 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamakhandi (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Sessions Judge’) whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No.1 i.e., appellant in Crl.A.No.100002/2021 and accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e., appellants in Crl.A.No.100261/2020 for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 324, 326 and 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.4 and 5 i.e., appellants in Crl.A.No.100260/2020 for the offence under Section 143 of IPC and acquitted them of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 504, 324, 326 and 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307 and 506 of IPC.

¶49

5 - CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶50

The learned Sessions Judge sentenced accused Nos.1

¶51

to 3 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 143 of IPC; sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 147 of IPC; sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC; sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 504 of IPC; sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- each for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC; sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC; sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge ordered, all the accused shall pay a fine of Rs.43,500/- each in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.

¶52

6 - CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶53

The learned Sessions Judge sentenced accused Nos.4

¶54

to 6 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 143 of IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The Accused are entitled for set off for the period they undergone in judicial custody.

¶55

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution was as

¶56

follows:

¶57

The deceased-Yallappa is the son of PW.8-Rukmavva and PW.10-Kariyappa (both are injured in this case). Their daughter, Shoba i.e., PW.13 was given in marriage to accused No.1-Arjuna 15 years prior to the date of incident i.e., 30.03.2018. Three months prior to the date of incident, accused No.1 developed illicit relationship with accused No.6 viz., Sunita, who had come with a group of labourers to the field of accused No.4 to cut sugarcane. As there was a land dispute between accused No.4 and his brother i.e., PW10Kariyappa, they were not on talking terms. The accused No.1 started residing with accused No.6 in a shed situated in the

¶58

7 - CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶59

land of accused No.4 at Alagundi, B.K. village. The same was opposed by the parents of PW13-Shobha i.e., PWs.8, 10 and her brothers i.e., deceased-Yallappa and complainant-PW1. On 30.03.2018, PW.13 and deceased-Yallappa went to the house of accused No.4 at about 12:00 noon and advised him not to encourage the illicit relationship between accused No.1 and accused No.6. The accused No.4 shooed away PW13 and deceased. On the same day, PWs.8 and 10-the parents of PW.13 along with deceased Yallappa, once again visited the shed of accused No.1 and called him near the GLBC canal road and questioned him about his illicit relationship with accused No.6. At that time, accused Nos.2 to 6 came to the spot and supported accused No.1 and accused No.2 declared that he would ensure that accused No.1 marries accused No.6. PWs.8 and 10 pleaded with them not to indulge in such acts. Thus, enraged by the same, accused Nos.1 to 5 with an intention to commit the murder of deceased, PWs.8 and 10 quarrelled with them by holding deadly weapons and declared that they would perform the marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.6. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted PW.10-Kariyappa with axe and chopper on his head, accused Nos.1, 5 and 6 assaulted PW.8-Rukmavva. At that time, deceased-Yallappa

¶60

8 - CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶61

attempted to pacify the quarrel between his parents and accused. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted him with axe, chopper, wooden club and stones. Due to the assault, PWs.8 and 10 sustained grievous injuries and deceasedYallappa succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Immediately, PW.1 shifted PWs.8 and 10 to Government Hospital, Mudhol and later to Kumareshwara Hospital, Bagalkote for higher treatment. Subsequently, PW.1 lodged a complaint before the Mudhol Police against accused Nos.1 to 6 as per Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, PW21-the then PSI of the respondent-Police registered FIR against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 506, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC in Crime No.139/2018 dated 30.03.2018 as per Ex.P51. Subsequently, PW.20 conducted the investigation by drawing inquest panchanama on the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P4, drawn the spot mahazar as per Ex.P5 and later, arrested the accused. Based on their voluntary statement, recovered the weapons used for the commission of crime and the clothes worn by them at the time of incident. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of eyewitnesses i.e., PWs.7, 8 and 10 and other witnesses and after obtaining relevant documents from the concerned authorities, laid charge

¶62

9 -

¶63

CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶64

sheet against the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 506, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC before the committal Court.

¶65

Post committal of the case before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused for the aforementioned offences and read over the same to the accused. The accused denied the charges and claim to be tried.

¶66

In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.21; marked 51 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P51 and identified 25 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.25.

¶67

After completion of the prosecution evidence, the learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating evidence of material witnesses to the accused as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same. The accused examined one witness on their behalf as DW.1 and marked 5 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D5.

¶68

10 -

¶69

CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶70

On assessment of oral and documentary evidence,

¶71

the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced them as stated supra. The said judgment is challenged by accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.100002/2021, accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crl.A.No.100261/2020 and accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crl.A.No.100260/2020.

¶72

We have heard the learned counsel Sri.K.S.Patil for the appellants/accused and the learned Addl. SPP Sri. A.M. Gundawade, for the respondent-State in all the appeals.

¶73

The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in all the appeals is that the judgment challenged under these appeals suffers from perversity and illegality since the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective. They contended that there are serious discrepancies, contradictions, omissions and embellishments in the evidence of injured eyewitnesses-PWs.8 and 10 and the evidence of PW.7-the independent eyewitness to the incident. According to them, there was a civil dispute pending between accused No.4 and the family of deceased and as accused No.4 was related to accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5, a

¶74

11 -

¶75

CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶76

false case was foisted against them by the Police at the instance of PWs.1, 8 and 10. He further contended that, there is an inordinate delay in recording the statement of PWs.7, 8 and 10 as it was recorded after a day of the incident. Further, PW.1-the complainant is not an eyewitness to the incident and according to him, PWs.7, 8 and 10 informed him that the accused assaulted his parents-PWs.8, 10 and his brother deceased Yallappa. There is no explanation whatsoever forthcoming from the record, as to why the Police have not recorded the statement of PWs.7, 8 and 10-the alleged eyewitnesses and injured on the date of incident. According to the counsel, this aspect creates a doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case. Additionally he contended that, the prosecution has largely relied on the evidence of close relatives of the deceased, who are most interested witnesses and no credence can be attached to their testimony. They also contended that the material witnesses-PWs.7, 8 and 10 have not stated the individual overt act of accused Nos.1 to 4 while assaulting the deceased, but made an omnibus statement that accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted the deceased. They contended that despite the above, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused No.4 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of

¶77

12 -

¶78

CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶79

IPC by holding that his role in the homicidal death of deceased is not proved. In such circumstance, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have acquitted other accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. They also contended that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the recovery of the weapons i.e., M.Os.7 and 21 to 23 used for the commission of offence. Though PW.6 supported the case of prosecution, the said recovery has not been effected as provided under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. With these submissions, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment by allowing the appeals.

¶80

Alternatively, the learned counsel contended that the evidence available on record, even if accepted on its face value for the sake of argument, then the act of the accused at the most may fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC which is punishable under Section 304 part I or II of IPC. They contended that the evidence discloses that deceased-Yallappa arrived at the scene of incident to pacify the quarrel between accused and PWs.8 and 10 and at that time, he might have received accidental blows by accused Nos.1 to 3. Hence, there was no such premeditative motive or intention on the part of

¶81

13 -

¶82

CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶83

accused Nos.1 to 3 to commit the murder of deceasedYallappa. With these submissions, he prays to modify the sentence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I or II of IPC.

¶84

Per contra , the learned Addl. SPP contended that the judgment under these appeals do not suffer from any perversity or illegality since the learned Sessions Judge after meticulously examining the evidence on record, passed a well reasoned judgment which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He further contended that the homicidal death of deceased-Yallappa and the injuries sustained by PWs.8 and 10 in the incident are not seriously disputed by the accused. Further, the evidence of PWs.7, 8 and 10, clearly established that accused Nos.1 to 3 are responsible for the homicidal death of deceased and accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 are also responsible for the injuries sustained by PWs.8 and 10. Immediately after the incident, PW.7-the eyewitness informed the same to PW.1 the brother of deceased and son of PWs.8 and 10 and in-turn PW.1 visited the spot and lodged a complaint against accused. In the evidence of PW.7, he clearly deposed that he had witnessed the incident and informed the same to PW.1. Further, the evidence of PW.7 corroborates the

¶85

14 -

¶86

CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶87

testimonies of PWs.8 and 10-injured eyewitnesses and they have clearly stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted with axe and chopper on the head of PW.10 and accused Nos.1, 5 and 6 assaulted PW.8 and accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted the deceased-Yallappa. The evidence of PWs.8 and 10 are consistent without any contradictions, omissions or embellishments. Further, they also identified the weapons i.e., M.Os.7, 21 to 23. Additionally, the respondent-Police also recorded the statement of PWs.7, 8 and 10 on 20.04.2018 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C as per Exs.P14, 15 and 18. The recovery of weapons-M.Os.7, 21 to 23 under Exs.P5 and P12 was also proved by the prosecution in the evidence of PWs.6 and 20. Hence, the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted the accused for the charges leveled against them. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeals.

¶88

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment and the evidence available on record, the following points arise for our consideration:

¶89

15 -

¶90

CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶91

i. Whether the judgment under these appeals suffers from any perversity or any illegality?

¶92

ii. Whether the learned Sessions Judge justified in convicting accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 324, 326, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and accused Nos.4 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 143 of IPC?

¶93

We have given our anxious thought to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the evidence on record.

¶94

As could be seen from the records, to prove the homicidal death of deceased-Yallappa, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of PW.9-the Medical Officer and the postmortem report issued by him as per Ex.P16. On careful perusal of Ex.P16, PW.9 opined that the cause of death is due to “hypovolumic and neurogenic shock secondary to severe head injuries, caused by (i) sharp (ii) hard and blunt (iii) hapoziod objects”. He further stated that, all the injuries sustained by the deceased are ante-mortem in nature. Apart from the evidence of Medical Officer, the prosecution also relied on the inquest panchanama conducted on the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P4. PW.2 and CW.2 are witnesses for the same. Among them, PW.2 identified the injuries on the dead

¶95

16 - CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶96

body. Hence, on a collective reading of the evidence of PW.2 and PW.9 along with Exs.P4 and 16, we are of the considered view that the death of deceased-Yallappa is homicidal one.

¶97

To connect accused Nos.1 to 3 to the homicidal death of deceased-Yallappa and accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 to the injuries sustained by PWs.8 and 10, the prosecution apart from relying on other evidence, primarily relied on the evidence of PW.1-complainant, PW.7-independent eyewitness and PWs.8 and 10-the injured witnesses to the incident. Among these witnesses, PW.1 the son of PWs.8 and 10 and brother of deceased-Yallappa, set the criminal law into motion by lodging complaint-Ex.P1. According to him, on the fateful day at about 03:30 p.m., PW.7-Shashidara Kumbara called him through mobile phone and informed that accused Nos.1 to 6 were quarreling with his parents PWs.8 and 10 and his brotherYallappa, near the land of accused No.4. Hence, he rushed to the spot and saw accused Nos.1 to 4 holding axe, chopper, wooden club and stone respectively along with accused Nos.5 and 6. Further, he saw his parents had sustained severe injuries and his brother-Yallappa had died and was lying in a pool of blood. On enquiry with his parents, they stated that the

¶98

17 - CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶99

accused Nos.1 to 6 assaulted them and the deceased with the weapons they were holding. Later, with the help of villagers, the injured PWs.8 and 10 were shifted to the Government Hospital, Mudhol where they were given first aid treatment and shifted to Kumareshwara Hospital for higher treatment. Subsequently, he lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. PW.1 in his evidence before the Court reiterated the statement made in Ex.P1. No doubt, he is not an eyewitness to the incident. However, on perusal of his evidence it could be gathered, he reached the spot soon after the incident and the accused were present on the spot of incident and were holding the weapons. Further, PWs.7, 8 and 10 informed about the act committed by the accused. In such circumstance, PW.1 has to be treated as res gestae witness as contemplated under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act and due credence can be given to his evidence. Further, PW.7-independent eyewitness also reiterated the contents of his 164 statement recorded before the learned Magistrate as per Ex.P14. In his evidence, he clearly stated that on the date of the incident all the accused together, by holding M.Os.7, 21 to 23, indiscriminately assaulted PWs.8, 10 and the deceased. Due to the assault, PWs.8 and 10 sustained severe injuries and their son-deceased succumbed to the injuries at

¶100

18 -

¶101

CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶102

the spot. The evidence of this independent eyewitness further corroborates the testimony of PWs.8 and 10-injured witnesses. On careful analysis of the evidence of PWs.8 and 10, both these witnesses have unequivocally deposed that on the fateful day, the accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted with axe and chopper on the head of PW.10 and accused Nos.1, 5 and 6 assaulted PW.8. Further, accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted the deceased-Yallappa with stone, axe, chopper and wooden club i.e., M.Os.7, 21 to 23 respectively and committed his murder. According to them, the reason for the commission of the act, they questioned accused No.4 and other accused about the illicit relationship of accused No.1 with accused No.6. Further, the statement of both these witnesses recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as per Exs.P15 and P18 respectively. They have indentified M.Os.7, 21 to 23 i.e., the weapons used by the accused for the commission of crime. Both these witnesses took first aid at Government Hospital, Mudhol and higher treatment at Kumareshwara Hospital for the injuries they sustained. PW.11 is the Doctor who treated both these witnesses at Government Hospital, Mudhol issued the wound certificates of PWs.8 and 10 as per Exs.P20 and P19 respectively. Apart from that, PW12-Doctor who treated PWs.8

¶103

19 - CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶104

and 10 at Kumareshwara Hospital also issued the report as per Exs.P24 and P25 along with the CT scan report Ex.P21 and 23 respectively. All these documents categorically established, PWs.8 and 10 had sustained grievous injuries in the spot due to assault made by the accused. Though the defence counsel cross-examined these witnesses intensely and extensively, nothing worthwhile was elicited from them to discard their testimony, except minor contradictions, which does not go to the root of the prosecution case. Hence, on a careful scrutiny of the evidence of PWs.1, 7, 8 and 10, their testimony is believable and trustworthy since they are the injured and natural witnesses to the incident.

¶105

Further, PW.13 the daughter of PWs.8 and 10 and sister of PW.1 and deceased, stated the motive for the alleged incident i.e., a civil dispute was pending between PWs.8, 10 and accused No.4 and also about the illicit affair of her husband i.e., accused No.1 with accused No.6-Sunitha. She further stated that her husband accused No.1 and accused No.6Sunitha were residing in a shed situated in the land of accused No.4 and on the fateful day, her parents PWs.8 and 10 along with her brother visited the said place and questioned accused

¶106

20 - CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶107

No.4. Enraged by the same, accused No.4 along with other accused assaulted her parents and her brother and committed his murder. This evidence of PW.13 further corroborates the testimony of PW.19, who stated that he conducted a panchayat between accused and PWs.8 and 10 in respect of the illicit affair between accused Nos.1 and 6.

¶108

It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the oral testimony of PWs.7, 8 and 10 corroborates the medical evidence i.e., the evidence of PWs.11 and 12-Doctors who have treated PWs.8 and 10 and the medical reports issued by them as per Exs.P19 to 25. PWs.11 and 12 have opined that the injuries sustained by PWs.8 and 10 could be caused if assaulted by M.Os.21 and 23. Further, on a careful perusal of the postmortem report, the Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased noticed 4 injuries, which reads as under:

¶109

Deep cut lacerated wound of 5 X 3 X 2 cm below left eye with left face deep congested.

¶110

Blood with Frooth oozing out from mouth, nostrils, left Ear. Tongue congested.

¶111

21 -

¶112

CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶113

Back of skull two HAPOZIOD swelling on scalp on temporal region left side measuring 5 X 3 X 3 cm and 5 X 4 X 2 cm on Palpitation. Fracture present on both selling with blood oozed out.

¶114

On right side of occipital bone fracture of 5 X 2 cm with bone crushed and brain Herniated.

¶115

The Doctor-PW.9 has given an opinion that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be possible if assaulted by axe-M.O.23, chopper-M.O.21, wooden clubM.O.22 and stone-M.O.7 as per Ex.P17. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that the injuries sustained by the deceased could not be caused if assaulted by M.O.22wooden club. To cross-check the same, we summoned the material objects to this Court from the trial Court and perused them carefully. M.O.22 is a wooden club, the flat surface of which approximately measures 5 cm. There was a bulge at the top end of the club. The injury No.3 mentioned in the postmortem report measures 5 X 3 X 3 cm and 5 X 4 X 2 cm. Hence, the size of injury No.3 mentioned in postmortem report could be caused by M.O.22. The Investigation Officer-PW.20

¶116

22 -

¶117

CRL.A NO.100002 OF 2021 C/W CRL.A.NO.100260 OF 2020 CRL.A.NO.100261 OF 2020

¶118

recovered M.Os.20 to 25 i.e., weapons and blood stained clothes of accused Nos.1 and 2 under mahazar Ex.P12. PW.6 is the witness for the same and supported the case of prosecution. Additionally, M.Os.20 to 25 were sent for chemical examination and the FSL report Ex.P50 shows that M.Os.20 to 25 were stained with human blood of ‘O’ group. In such circumstance, the oral testimony of material witnesses corroborates the medical and scientific evidence adduced by the prosecution.

¶119

The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for all the charges leveled against them and convicted accused Nos.4 to 6 only for the offence punishable under Section 143 of IPC. For the said findings, the learned Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of PWs.7, 8 and 10 and held that accused Nos.1, 5 and 6 assaulted PW.8, accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted PW.10 and accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted the deceased. As discussed supra , the consistent testimony of all the material witnesses clearly established the said aspect. Thus, in our considered view, the learned Sessions Judge rightly passed the impugned judgment which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. In that view of the

¶120