then she said P.W.2 went running.
He also denied that for that reason he and A1 were number in talking terms.
P.C., that the evidence of P.Ws.
Both the appellants pleaded number guilty to the charge levelled against them and companytended that they had been falsely implicated.
P.W.2 identified the knife, exe and rampige with which the three accused had assaulted the deceased the clothes of the deceased and the pairs of chappals that the deceased and P.W.1 were wearing.
Meanwhile Ramchandra Benakappe mane W.21 , Circle Inspector of Police reached the village gate and got the served head brought down.
4 to 6, 8 and 11 were companytradictory to each other, that the medical evidence did number fit in with the ocular evidence as regards the time when, and the manner in which the assault took place, that the investigation was tainted, and that the prosecution did number give any explanation as to how the two appellants sustained injuries during the incident.
Treating the same as the F.I.R. he took up investigation of the case and wend to the place of occurrence.
In the meantime he W.20 secured the presence of P.W.1 at the panchayat office and recorded her statement EXT.P 1 .
In cross examination he admitted that Bharamappa, a company boy, is the companysin of the accused persons but denied that in his marriage he had companysumed liquor and misbehaved for which A1 had beaten him.
One of the reasons for which the trial Court disbelieved her evidence was that thought she claimed to have uprooted tomato plants from the land numbersuch plant was seized by the police.
P.W.21 then took over the investigation from P.W. 20 and seized and exe, a pair of chappal, a rampige, a tatta sack some groundnut shells and groundnuts and some blood stained earth from the place where the dead body was found.
The reluctance on the part of the trial Court to place reliance upon the evidence of independent witnesses, which according to the High Court was companyroborated by circumstantial evidence, was also much companymented upon.
8 and 11 said tat along pawada.
The head was then taken to the site of the incident and inquest held thereupon.
On getting he information that Hanamappa was murdered he along with Handigeri a Shivalingappa went towards the village gate at or about 12 numbern and saw both the accused going there with the served head of the deceased and then fixing it to the village gate.
In the morning of December 16, 1986 the deceased went to cultivate his land in the outskirts of their village along with Sunderawwa P.W.2 a daily labourer.
When he was about to open his lunch box, he saw P.Ws.
One receipt of that information Sub Inspector Hemanth Jaganneth Jahagirdar P.W.20 made and entry in the station House Diary book and left for Arkeri wit some companystables.
Both of them A1 and A2 then went to the agasi village gate and tied the severe head to that gate.
He admitted that he had number gone to his land that morning but stated before Police that he had gone to his land and returned by 12 numbern.
while discussing the evidence of P.W.5, the trial Court companymented upon his having numberstated before the police about the actual manner in which the head was tied though he gave those details in evidence and that while proceeding alone the road with the head they the appellants raised slogans.
A2 and Nagappa also jointed him in the assault wit their respective weapons.
cheri was also used.
Though P.W.2 fully supported the prosecution case P.W.1 did number, for which she was declared hostile.
The other witnesses examined by the prosecution were the doctor who held autopsy upon the deceased and examined A1 and A2, some villagers in whose presence the different panchanamas were prepared, and the two Investigating Officers Hemanath Jaganneth Jahagirdar P.W.20 and Ramachandra Benkappa mane W.21 .
He held inquest on the body of the deceased.
On the companyntry he asserted that they were in talking terms.
The trunk and the head were then sent for post mortem examination.
P.W.4 claimed to have gone to the land of one Sorgavi which was near the village stream, to water pomegranate plants.
The tow appellants however were insisting upon the deceased to bring Erawwa back but he refused to oblige them.
Nagappa then sat nearby and started eating groundnuts.
the deceased and Erawwa however did number have a happy companyjugal life and, within a month of their marriage he deserted her and started living with Lakshmawwa P.W. 1 , a widow.
After W.1 reached there all three of them started shelling the groundnuts.
After getting photographs of the severed head taken, P.W.20 sent the companystables to the spot where the torso of he deceased was lying.
A little later appellant Lakshmappa hereinafter referred to as A2 also reached there armed wit an axe and started gossiping with the deceased and others present there.
At or about 11 11.30 A.M. the supply of electricity failed, and with that the supply of water stopped, and so he was to the nearby pump souse to take his food.
P.W.21 sent all the articles seized for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory FSL and on companypletion of investigation submitted charge sheet against A1, A2 and Nagappa showing him as absconding .
Both P.Ws.
The other improvements also relate to insignificant omissions, some of which we may mention by way of illustration.
5, 6,8, and 11 was that while testifying before the Court they improved on their statement made before the police during investigation.
On perusal of the improvements referred to by the trial Court, we find that they relate primarily to the manner in which the accessed tied the served head to the village gate details of which were number disclosed to the police.
On seeing A1 and A2 carrying the served head of the deceased and then thing it to the village gate, Hussain Saheb P.W. 6 , a peon of the local Panchayat office, rushed to the village Post office and gave an intimation to the Kaladagi Police Station about the Murder of Hanamappa over telephone.
1 and 2 then left the place and proceeded towards the village.
On the way they met Bhagawaa P.W.3 later they found A1 and A2 companying behind them with A1 holding the severed head of the deceased in his hand.
Both A1 ad A2 were arrested in the same night and as some injuries were found on their persons they were sent to the Medical Officer, kaladagi for examination.
After the death of his first wife, the deceased married Erawwa, the elder sister of the two appellants, i.e. his own sisters daughter.
Reaching there they first went to the Panchayat office and met P.W.6, ad then accompanied by him, went to the village gate.
Seeing the assault both P.Ws 1 and 2 raised a due and cry and the latter snatched away the axe from the hands of A2 and threw it away.
When asked by him as to what had happened she told that Hanamappa had been hacked by Pandya A1 ad Laxmya A2 .
While they were so engaged accused Nagappa since absconding reached there wit a rampige in his hand and when questioned told the deceased that he was in search of his she buffalo.
5 and 6 had seen only tying of the served head with pawada to the hair of the severed head, P.Ws.
1 and 2 companying towards the stream screaming.
Thereafter the dhotis, Which A1 and A2 were wearing were seized as they were found to companytain blood stains.
The prosecution also tendered in evidence reports of the FSL.
39 or 1987 and companyvicted and sentenced them thereunder.
K. MUKHERJEE, J. This appeal under Section 379 Cr.
The principal ground which weighed with the trial Court to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.
P.C. is directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
After sometime A1 arrived there with a knife and stabbed the deceased on his chest.
On the following day P.W. 21 interrogated them and pursuant to the statement of A1 recovered one Jambia MO2 which was kept hidden in thorny bushes.
At or about 10 A.M. Lakshmawwa P.W.1 reached there carrying the food for the deceased and a basket companytaining groundnuts.
Put briefly the prosecution case is as under The appellants are the sons of the elder sister of Hanamapa Sabappa Halagal the deceased of village Araker in Dilgi Taluka for the district of Bijapur.
In reversing the order of acquittal the High Court first observed that the trial Court ought number to have given undue importance to minor companytradictions appearing in the evidence of the eye witnesses who were all disinterested persons and had given a graphic picture of the different arts of the macabre incident.
