At about 11.30 p.m., PW 13 Madhukar Musale, Circle Inspector of Police, Tumkur received an information about the incident of rioting that took place at Hanumanthapura.
Complainant Veerabhadraiah along with one Krishnaiah, s o Oblaiah carried Anjinappa in an autorickshaw to the hospital.
After companypletion of investigation, all the accused were charged for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.
7 Tukaraiah died during the pendency of the case and the trial abated against him.
It is the case of the prosecution that on October 30, 1989, one such transaction was held at about 5.30 p.m. in which one Nagaraj, the successful bidder was given a companyper vessel Kolaga .
Brief facts of the case are that Accused No.
They supported the case of the prosecution as to Chit Transaction, the incident which took place at about 5.30 p.m. on October 30, 1989 as also the assault at 9.30 p.m. on the same day.
2, Somashekhara, Accused No.
16 of 1991 acquitting the accused appellants herein of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code IPC for short .
The information given by him was recorded in writing as per Ex.
Being aggrieved by the order of companyviction and sentence, the appellants have approached this Court.
P 1 as companyplaint and was registered as Crime No.
86 of 1989 for offences punishable Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
PWs 1 to 4 were portrayed as eye witnesses and amongst them, PWs 2 to 4 were shown to be injured persons.
On the way to hospital, Anjinappa breathed his last.
1 to 8 who had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and were armed with weapons like, knife, reapers and stones attacked PWs 2 to 4.
The dead body of Anjinappa was then taken to the General Hospital, Tumkur.
The High Court, accordingly, set aside acquittal recorded by the trial companyrt and companyvicted the appellants for various offences as ordered in the final paragraph 55 of the judgment.
The accused caused injuries to all the three persons.
Inquest over the dead body of deceased Anjinappa was done and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination.
Nagaraj returned the vessel with his maternal uncle as it was old and demanded a new vessel.
Likewise, injuries to PWs 2 to 4 were also proved by PW 12, Dr. Chandrasekhara Prasad.
On being intimated by PSI, PW 7 A.R. Shariff about the rioting and the injured being admitted to General Hospital at Tumkur, PW 13 went to the hospital and learnt that Anjinappa had died and the other three injured persons were taking treatment.
8 Thammaiah took out a button knife from his pocket and stabbed Anjinappa on the left side of his chest, due to which Anjinappa slumped and fell on the ground.
It is alleged that when the quarrel was going on and PWs 2 to 4 were injured, deceased Anjinappa came forward and intervened and went ahead to stop the quarrel.
The said transaction was companyducted once a week in the shop of PW 8 Krishnaiah and also at Kollapuradamma Temple at Hanumanthapura.
But the request was refused by the proprietors of the Chit Transaction.
It is alleged that PW 1, Veerabhadraiah, who was present in the hospital, was questioned by PW 13.
The accused persons after companymitting assault, threw the clubs and rippers at the spot and ran away.
In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses.
PW 11 Dr. Hanumakka who companyducted the postmortem opined that the injuries were ante mortem in nature.
8, Thammaiah and PW 8 Krishnaiah were running a Chit Transaction in which successful members were given articles like vessels, watches, sarees, cloth pieces, etc.
It is further the prosecution case that at about 9.30 p.m. on the same day, i.e. October 30, 1989, near Hanumanthapura Bypass, when PW1 Veerabhadraiah along with PWs 2, 3 and 4 Chikkanna, Rudramurthy and Puttiah was proceeding, the Accused Nos.
It was also held by the High Court that companytradictions and variations were of minor nature which did number affect substratum of the prosecution case and evidence of PWs 1 to 4 had remained totally unshaken and there was a ring of truth running through their testimony which inspired companyfidence numberwithstanding trivial omissions and discrepancies, which did number go to the root of the matter.
Accused No.
Notice was issued by the Court on August 07, 2006 on appeal as also on application for bail.
1008 of 1999 whereby it set aside the order dated July 14, 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Sessions Case No.
C.K. Thakker, J. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order of companyviction dated November 24, 2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.
Accused No.
