He held Inquest upon the dead body and, after sending it for post mortem examination, went in search of the accused persons.
He attached those articles and the tractor.
In companyrse of the trial the prosecution examined twenty seven witnesses.
a According to the prosecution case on October 10, 1985, at or about 1O A.M. the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with various weapons in village Bappur and, in prosecution of their companymon object, accosted Veerabhadrappa P.W.I and Pampansgowda the deceased , when they came out of the hotel of Pampayya P.W.4 and assaulted the former with a sword near the house of one Nabeebi, Thereafter they chased P.W.I and the deceased who, being frightened, took shelter in the nearby house of Meelamma P.W.5 , after bolting the door of the house from inside.
Thus, accepting the case of the prosecution, it companyvicted the appellants and A9 but gave benefit of doubt to A15, A16 and A17 in absence of satisfactory evidence to prove their participation in the incident.
The accused persons pleaded number guilty to the charges framed against them and companytended that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity.
P.W.I then went to the Police Station at Turvihar and lodged a companyplaint.
Though he failed to apprehend any of them on that day he found a tractor with trailer parked in front of the cafe shed of A3 companytaining various weapons like sticks, sword, spear and axe.
Of the surviving fourteen, the High Court upheld the acquittal of three and, reversing the acquittal of the other eleven who were arrayed as Al, A2, A4 to AIO, A12 and A1.3 before the trial Court and will henceforth be so referred to , companyvicted them under Section 148 I.P.C. and 302, 307, 449, 436 and 201 1.P.C., all read.
with Section 149 I.F.C. A9 died thereafter and the remaining ten filed the instant appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The defence, however, did number examine any witness but exhibited certain documents in support of their case.
On companypletion of investigation he submitted charge sheet against them.
Later on.
Of the witnesses examined by the prosecution Veerabhadrappa P.W.I , Shankarappa P.W.2 , Yankappa P.W.3 , Pampayya P.W.4 , Mahanthappa P.W.6 and Neelamma P.W8 figured as eye witnesses, Relying upon the evidence of the doctor W.16 , the trial Court first held that the deceased met with a homicidal death and P,W,1 sustained injuries as alleged by the prosecution and then proceeded to companysider the evidence of the five eye witnesses.
Finding numberother alternative when P.W.8 opened the door of her house, the accused persons trespassed into it, assaulted P.W.I and dragging the deceased out of the house killed him with the weapons they were carrying.
They then attempted to set the house of P.W.8 on fire by pouring kerosene soaked lighted companyton inside the house.
A case was registered on that companyplaint and P.W.I was sent to the local hospital for treatment, Kalakappa P.W.27 , Inspector of Police, took up investigation of the case and want to the scene of offence.
K. MUKHERJEE,J. Seventeen persons, including the ten appellants before us, were tried by the Sessions Judge, Raichur for rioting, murder and other companynate offences and acquitted.
Assailing their acquittal the respondent State of Karnataka filed an appeal in the High Court during the pendency of which three of them died and, resultantly, the appeal as against them abated.
