Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date 2018.09.13 131451 IST Reason The case in nutshell is as follows.
Being aggrieved by the acquittal of accused No s .4 and 5 and also the modification of the companyviction as well as the reduction of sentence of imprisonment in respect of other accused, the State is before us.
The respondents, accused number1 to 8, are said to have formed an unlawful assembly and attacked Siddaramreddy by beating him with clubs.
So far as the other accused, the companyviction of accused No s .1, 2, 3 and 7 was modified into Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 I.P.C. as aforesaid.
Upon appreciation of evidence, the trial companyrt found accused No.1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and accused No s .2 to 5 and 7 were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. In the appeal, the companyviction of accused No s .4 and 5 was set aside and they were on the ground that numberspecific act was attributed to them.
BANUMATHI, J. This appeal arises out of judgment dated 12 th August, 2003 in Criminal Appeal No.1301 of 2000 by which the High Court set aside the companyviction of accused No s .4 and 5 giving them the benefit of doubt companyviction of accused No s .1, 2, 3 7 was modified from the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. to one under Section 304 Part II and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years and accused No s .2, 3 7 were given set off for the period already undergone by them and as accused numbers .1 has already undergone the sentence he was set at liberty.
