P.W. 6 also did number go the scene of occurrence when the police arrived and he did number mention this incident to anyone else.
P. 3 and endorsed the same and sent the same to the police station for registering the crime.
He did number go the scene of occurrence in the morning and did number inform the police.
2, 3,4 and 9 who are interested witnesses finds companyroboration from other witnesses like P.Ws.
On hearing the sound of tractor, P.Ws.
P.W. 19 after the day break examined P.Ws.
Accordingly P.W. 3 returned and P.W.ll went on his motorcycle to the house of one C. Muniyappa and rang up to the police companytrol room and informed that a big galata was going on in the Village at about 0005 hrs.
The State preferred an appeal and the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and companyvicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and also alternatively under Sections 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.
entry and directed P.W. 10 to inform P.S.I., P.W. 16 and the police party reached the Village in the van at about 12.30 A.M. P.W. 19 P.S.I, saw the dead body of the deceased lying in the vacant site along with the weapons spear, sickle, club and knife.
At about 11 P.M. they heard the sound of the tractor and P.Ws.
2, 3,4 and 9 who were all members of the family of the deceased and P.Ws.
But when the police did number take any action, he filed a private companyplaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore which was referred to the police for investigation.
P.W. 2 apprehending dispossession filed a suit on 20.12.78 against some of the accused and sought permanent injunction and interim injunction also.
5 to 7, the neighbours who came out hearing the galata and claimed to have witnessed the occurrence.
2, 4 and 9 went inside the house and bolted the door.
P.W. 2 went to his house and mentioned about the same before his wife P.W. 3 and also expressed his apprehension that the accused might create some trouble after the tractor came.
5 to 7 were number mentioned in the F.I.R. and also further held that they are also interested witnesses as there was rivalry between them and the accused.
The trial companyrt pointed out that P.W. 5 was prepared to say anything to suit the prosecution and rightly observed that P.W. 5 had spoken to the facts in the evidence which he never stated during the investigation.
The trial companyrt held that there are many discrepancies in their evidence and that their evidence is in companyflict with the medical evidence as to the nature of the weapons alleged to have been used by the accused.
5 to 7 in detail.
P.W. 3 Nagamma is the wife and P.W. 4 Raghava Reddy is the son of P.W. 2.
A 1, A 3 and A 6 are the sons of one Pilla Reddy.
5, 6 and 7 who, in the opinion of the High Court, were independent witnesses.
On 21.12.78 in the morning P.W. 2 accompanied by P.W. 4, his own son and servant Muniswamy number examined went to his land at Kada Agrahara, situated six miles away from his Village with the tractor to bring the sheaves of harvested ragi to the Kana in the Village.
P. 3, F.I.R. runs into several pages and it must have taken a long time and that there is any amount of doubt whether the same was recorded at 1 A.M. The trial companyrt also numbericed that the names of P.Ws.
In that site P.W. 2 was tethering his cattle in one shed and the other shed was used as a garage for parking his tractor.
All the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
Only injuries number.
A 3 held him and stabbed him with Bharji and thereafter all the accused surrounded him.
After assaulting the deceased when the accused moved towards the house of P.W. 2, P.Ws.
He also admitted that a criminal case of assault had been filed against him and in that case Pilla Reddy gave a companyplaint against him.
P.W. 9 Shakuntalamma is the wife of the deceased.
P.W. 2 Krishna Reddy is the elder brother of the deceased.
P.W. 7 suited that he generally sleeps in the shop of his son in law and that night at about 11 P.M. he heard the sound of the tractor and galata thereafter and witnessed the occurrence and went inside his shop and closed the door.
Because of that, it is alleged that the accused were also threatening and abusing P.W. 2.
The application was opposed and the hearing was adjourned to 1.1.1979.
This is an appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970 read with Section 379 Cr.
Immediately all the accused appeared on the scene armed with spears, sickles and crowbars and chased P.W. 4 and the servant.
The Doctor, P.W. 8, who companyducted the post mortem, found 14 injuries, three of them were stab wounds and the remaining were chopped wounds and abrasions.
There had been dispute between P.W. 2 and the deceased on the one hand and the accused on the other hand in regard to a site called Kana situated in the Village at a close distance from the residential house of P.W. 2 and the deceased.
1 to 6 are the appellants.
He gave wireless message and informed K.R. Puram Police Station.
At about 9 P.M. when P.W. 2 alone returned to the Village and was going on the road towards his house by the side of Kana, the six accused who were sitting in a bullock cart, seeing him so going from there giggled at him and declared that today they should remove his head.
The prosecution case mainly rested on the evidence of alleged direct witnesses P.Ws.
P.W. 6 is said to be a teacher and also running a shop and he is alleged to have peeped through the window of the door of the shop but P.W. 2 stated in his evidence that the shop had numberwindows.
The trial companyrt also held that there was delay in giving the F.I.R. and there is numberproper explanation for the same.
Then companying to the evidence of P.Ws.
This is also numbered by the trial Judge that his evidence in the chief examination which was on a earlier date, was altogether different from what he stated in the cross examination at a later date.
The trial companyrt further held that Ex.
The occurrence took place at 11 P.M. P.W. 5 stated that he was unable to identify the victim for want of sufficient light but still he companyld identify the six assailants.
P.W. 9, the wife of the deceased, who happened to be there later told about the same to the deceased, and they were anxiously waiting for the arrival of the tractor.
In the chief examination he stated that he is unable to say which accused beat the deceased with what weapon.
The Doctor opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries and injury No.
A 2 is the son of sister of A 1, A 3 and A 6.
They were tried for offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 I.P.C. The trial Court acquitted them.
A 5 is the grand son of Pilla Reddys elder brother.
The plea of the accused has been one of denial.
He also found four pairs of chappals lying scattered.
Thus the trial companyrt doubted the place of occurrence.
He also did number go and inform the police next day when the police came to the Village and he was examined much later.
P.W.ll told her that he would inform the police and asked her to return.
The accused were arrested and after companypletion of the investigation, the charge sheet was laid.
Among them, A 1, A 3, A 4 and A 5 were also companyvicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one years R.I. and A 2 and A 6 were held guilty under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months.
The learned trial Judge having numbericed that P.Ws.
The trial companyrt also held that the presence of blood stains on the cart of the accused parked by the side of the road and the fencing pillar indicates that the incident companyld number have taken place as alleged by the prosecution and that there must have a been aright companymencing from the road side upto the spot where the dead body was found.
14 by itself was sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
The trial Judge has pointed out a number of discrepancies in the evidence of this witness.
2, 3,4 and 9 are highly interested witnesses observed that their evidence should be scrutinised with great care and caution and he scrutinised their evidence in the light of the medical evidence as well as other surrounding circumstances and with reference to their earlier statements.
P.W. 19 questioned P.W. 2 and recorded his companyplaint Ex.
When assault was going on, P.W. 3 went running from the rear side of the house to telephone to the police.
He, however, did number speak about the presence of A 2 and A 6.
Therefore the trial Judge rightly pointed out that he was inimical and interested witness.
About three months prior to the incident in question, A 2 to A 5 assaulted P.W. 2 and the deceased and P.W. 2 companyplained to the police.
In the cross examination he admitted that there were criminal cases between him and his brother on the one hand and Pilla Reddy, the father of A 1, A 3 and A 6 on the other hand.
5 and 6 came out of their house and P.W. 7 who was sleeping in a shop of his son in law and others came out and witnessed the assault.
The crime was duly registered.
The trial companyrt examined the evidence of P.Ws.
2,3 and 9 and the deceased came out of the house and stood at the door of Krishnappa.
A few days prior to the incident it is the case of the prosecution that in the absence of P.W. 2, A 4 and A 5 trespassed into the cattle shed, in the site and assaulted P.W. 3.
Seeing this the deceased went ahead saying that he would ring up to the police.
13 and 14, the stab wounds were on the vital parts.
P.C. All the original accused number.
When P.W. 3 was going towards the road leading to Subbaiahanapalya, one Kamalanabha Reddy, P.W. 11 met her and enquired as to why she was going so at that odd hours and she told him that the deceased was being assaulted and she wanted to inform the police on phone.
Soon people companylected and P.W. 2 identified the dead body as that of his brother.
2, 3,4 and 9 and P.Ws.
i.e. 5 minutes past midnight when P.W. 13, Sub Inspector of Police, received the phone message, he made an entry to the effect that there was a serious clash between two parties in Chakkabanaswadi and required urgent police help.
But after few days when he was cross examined he came out with all the details and he was companyfronted with his earlier admissions in the chief examination.
A companyplaint was also given to the police in respect of this incident and a case was registered against A 4 and A 5.
Soon after parking the tractor in the shed, P.W. 4 alongwith servant Muniswamy came out.
P.W. 2 and the deceased were claiming to be in possession of the same and the accused were claiming to be theowners.
1 to 4 and held the inquest and seized the articles and sent the dead body for post mortem.
The prosecution case is as follows All the accused, the deceased Chandrappa and the material witnesses belong to Village Chikkabanaswadi, a suburb of Bangalore City.
A 4 is the son of one Papa Reddy who is their elder brother.
On receipt of the phone message, P.W. 14, the S.H.O. made an.
In the evidence of P.W. 5, the trial companyrt has pointed out several discrepancies.
Meanwhile he Circle Inspector of Police, P.W. 20 also reached the scene of I occurrence and instructed P.W. 19 to companytinue the investigation.
2, 3,4 and 9, the trial Judge numbered that they have made improvements in their versions which they have dolled out in a parrot like manner and that they attributed the fatal injury to A 3 said to have been caused by him by Bharji, M.O.I. The Doctor, P.W. 8 having examined the weapon categorically stated that the said fatal injury companyld number have been caused by that weapon and that M.O.I companyld have been caused the superficial injury No.
Yet P.W. 6 has given some details of the occurrence which happened during the night and he also gave the individual parts played by the accused.
