The accused fell down on the spot and succumbed to the injuries.
According to PW3, PW4 gave him the names of six persons who assaulted Mahadevappa.
Many of the accused are interrelated.
The inquest was companyducted by the Circle Inspector of PolicePW13, the next day morning.
The accused No.7 died during the pendency of the Sessions case.
As regards the presence of PW4 again the reasons given by the trial Court are relevant reasons.
He died on the spot.
A6 tied the two legs of the deceased with dhoti.
Briefly, the prosecution case is this On 3.9.1988, at about 9 a.m. when the deceased Mahadevappa, who went to the house of PW8 at Kuknoor village the previous day, was going back to his native village Kumman Sirasgi, PW4a carpenter by profession, was also going to Kumman Sirasgi along with the deceased.
The postmortem revealed that there were injuries to the vital parts of the body such as stomach, abdomen, intestine, liver and lungs apart from the fracture of ribs.
1 to 4 and the attack did number companytinue after they came to the scene.
1 to 4 on flimsy grounds by rejecting the evidence of PWs 4 5 and other circumstantial evidence.
His name was entered in the rowdy sheet of the police station.
PW13 then arrested the accused and claimed to have recovered the weapons used on the basis of the information furnished by them in the presence of panchas.
Aggrieved by the reversal of acquittal by the High Court, the present appeal is filed by the accused Nos.
The alleged recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused appellants is also being relied upon as companyroborative evidence.
The High Court observed that numbersecond view was possible as far as the guilt of the accused Nos.
There were 11 external injuries.
The postmortem was done on the spot by the Medical Officer, Jawargi who was examined as PW11.
PW4 who was behind the deceased and PW5, a person having lands in the vicinity, are supposed to be the eyewitnesses to the crime.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal to the extent of companyvicting the accused Nos.
P.C. only in the evening of 4th September, 1988 .
The prosecution case mainly rests on the evidence of PWs 4 5.
The other 11 accused including the appellants herein were acquitted by the trial Court.
Admittedly PW4 did number fix the wooden horse at the house mentioned above even till the date of giving evidence and numberreason has been given for number fixing the wooden horse till date.
The State of Karnataka filed the appeal in the High Court questioning the acquittal.
1 to 4 was companycerned.
Hence the appeal had abated against him.
They, along with nine others, were charged with the offences under Sections 147, 148 302 read with 149 IPC.
It is also seen from the evidence of the Police OfficerPW12 that the deceased Mahadevappa had criminal record and he is an accused in a case of murder of A3s mother.
2 to 4.
Hence accused Nos.
2 to 4 appellants herein .
As regards the other accused persons, the High Court was of the view that A5 to A12 reached the spot only after the other four accused attacked the deceased Mahadevappa and that these persons did number share the companymon object with the accused Nos.
Thus, according to the version in the FIR and the evidence of PW3, PW4 gave six names and PW5 gave equal number of names.
During the pendency of the appeal, the accused No.1 died.
After companypletion of investigation, PW13 filed the charge sheet in the Court.
The statements of PWs 4 5 were recorded sometime in the evening of 4.9.1988.
PW4 did number inform the companyplainant PW3 about the presence of A3, A4, A6, A8, A11 A12 but in his deposition PW4 made improvements stating that A4, A5, A8, A11 A12 were also present at the spot and that A6, A9 A10 pelted stones at him.
The High Court felt that the trial Judge gave undue importance to minor aspects in rejecting the testimony of PWs 4 5.
As regards the motive of the crime, it is fairly clear from the evidence on record that the accused and the members of the prosecution party were inimically disposed towards each other in view of the land dispute and the panchayat elections.
PW13 then took other steps such as sending the bloodstained mud and clothes found on the dead body for chemical examination.
5 to 12 were acquitted on benefit of doubt.
The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of PW4 for the following reasons The version of PW4 that he was going to Kumman Sirasgi on 3.9.1988 in order to fix a wooden horse to the doors of Kuderagonda family is unbelievable.
The chemical examiners report is Ext.
30 of 1989 on the file of I Addl Sessions Judge, Gulbarga.
When they came to the cart road near the land of Chand Patel A11 within the limits of Kumman Sirasgi, the accused A6, A9 A10 stopped Mahadevappa and thereafter A1 A3 attacked him with axe and A2 A4 assaulted him with dagger and A5, A8 A12 instigated the other accused to kill Mahadevappa.
The purpose of his visit to Kumman Sirasgi was number disclosed to the I.O. He companyld number even give the name of the person who placed the order and paid the price of Rs.3500/ .
PW5, who came to the spot where the dead body lay, allegedly gave the names of A4 to A6, A8, A11 12.
PW3, the younger brother of the deceased, having got the information about the incident from PWs 4 5, went to Yadrami police station by walk and lodged the report to the Sub Inspector of Police PW12 at 4.15 p.m. In turn, he recorded the statement of PW3 and it is marked as Ext.
The FIR seems to have reached the Magistrate the next day morning at about 9 a.m. The Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR proceeded to the spot of the incident at about 8 p.m. and stayed there upto 11 p.m. till the arrival of the Circle Inspector of Police PW13 , but he did number meet the family members number did he make any efforts to call the witnesses or record their statements.
The FIR was registered on the basis of that statement.
The High Court wrongly assumed that A5 to A12 reached the spot after the assault by A1 to A4 and that numbere of them were with the other four accused initially.
The witness stated that the police called him to the spot at the time of companyducting panchnama on the dead body of Mahadevappa and he had signed the inquest mahazar but the inquest report does number bear his signature his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.
The High Court, on reappreciation of evidence, held that the trial Court acquitted the accused Nos.
VENKATARAMA REDDI, J. The three appellants herein are accused Nos.
As A1 died, he was number companyvicted, though A1s companyplicity was held proved.
They are A1, A2, A3, A7, A9 A10.
