The appellants were acquitted by the trial Court vide order dated 11th September.
After the appellants surrendered and furnished proof of surrender, leave was granted on 27th August, 1992 and vide order dated 28th August, 1992, all the appellants were directed to be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.
For an occurrence which took place on 29th July, 1986, nine persons were charged for offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 325, 307, 302, 326 read with Section 149, IPC.
1 to 7 in Criminal Appeal No.
On appeal by the State, the High Court of Karnataka vide judgment dated 9th June, 1992 set aside the acquittal of the eight appellants for offences under Sections 147/148/326/149, IPC while maintaining their acquittal in respect of other offences.
15,000/ each and appellant Venkappa Dundappa Katti appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
After recording evidence, the trial Court vide order dated 11th September, 1987 acquitted all the eight appellants Accused 9 was absconding and was number tried of all the offences.
Two persons namely, Kathalsab and Govindappa succumbed to their injuries and died, while Husensab, brother of Kathalsab, received injuries during the said occurrence.
537/1992 shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and appellant Venkappa Dundappa Katti appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
The appellants were directed to undergo varying terms of imprisonment for offences under Sections 147/ 148/326/149, IPC.
The fine shall be deposited by the appellants in the trial Court within 8 weeks.
The appellants have questioned their companyviction and sentence through the present appeals by special leave.
1987 and after their companyviction for offences under Sections 326/149, 147 and 148, IPC by the High Court on 9th June, 1992, they were directed to be released on bail vide our order dated 28th August, 1992.
1 to 7 In Criminal Appeal No.
Bijapur.
Appellants Nos.
5,000/ with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge.
At present they are all on bail.
Mr. R. K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has questioned the companyviction and sentence of the appellants but having regard to the evidence led in the case and the findings recorded by the High Court which to our mind are companyent and sound, we find that companyviction of the appellants for various offences as numbericed above is well merited and is supported by the evidence on record.
Faced with this situation, learned companynsel for the appellants companyfined himself to the question of sentence only.
The occurrence took place as early as in 1986.
