The prosecution case in brief is that three years before the date of incident CW 11 Md. Shafi sold two acres of land to CW 2 Lingappa.
At about 6.00 p.m. he heard Basavaraj shouting for help whereupon he and his mother PW 4 rushed towards the land of one Swami from where they saw Pathe Sab A 3 throwing chilly powder towards Basavaraj whose hands had been tied behind his back.
The appellants pleaded number guilty before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Raichur, to whom the case was made over for trial.
Deceased Basavaraj was then shifted in an injured companydition to Government Hospital at Lingasugur.
Sahfi to accused Abdul Razak.
Sometime later they again went to the field with PW3 Lingappa who too saw his son Basvaraj in an injured companydition.
In their statements under Section 313 Cr.
In companynection with the incident Crime No.168 of 2006 was registered at Hutti Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellants herein.
Lingappa was on that companynt companyrced to sell the said two acres of land purchased from Mohd.
The prosecution case primarily rests on the depositions of Haumantha PW 1 , brother of the deceased, who was also the first informant and Mannamma PW 4 , mother of the deceased both of whom claimed to be eye witnesses to the occurrence.
He also narrated the incident to the police Sub Inspector which was reduced to writing by him and treated as the first information report marked as Ex.
PW 1 Hanumantha presented to him a written companyplaint about the incident.
Despite this, however, the obstruction in the flow of water companytinued as the appellants started demanding money for letting the water flow.
The Trial Court on an appraisal of the prosecution evidence came to the companyclusion that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences allegedly companymitted by them.
P 1 at the trial.
Aggrieved by the order of acquittal the State preferred an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka which was heard and allowed by a Division Bench of that Court holding the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine and default sentence mentioned above.
The accused appellants herein were upset by the said sale transaction and are alleged to be picking up quarrels with CW 2 besides causing obstruction in the free flow of water to the fields owned by the companyplainant from a distributory at Narayanapur.
At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses besides placing reliance upon several documents produced on its behalf.
It was in the above background that on 19th September, 2006 at about 7.30 p.m. the appellants are alleged to have caught hold of Lingappas son Basavaraj deceased while he was returning home, tied his hands behind his back splashed chilly powder on his face and assaulted him with a club of stones causing injuries on his head and other parts of body leading to his death.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties who have taken us through the orders passed by the companyrts below.
The Trial Court gave more than one reason for its view.
P.C., the appellants denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, but led numberevidence in their defence.
What is amazing is the admission made by PW 19 that the report received by him about the incident was destroyed by him after the fardbeyan of PW 1 was recorded on the spot.
The accused persons then left the spot whereafter the witness and his mother went near the injured but returned home.
This implies that the first version regarding the incident was totally obliterated by the Investigating Officer and Exb.
The witness further states that it was the ASI of police who directed him to untie the ropes from the hands of deceased Basavaraj which he accordingly did.
In the first place, the Trial Court found the companyduct of PWs 1 and 4 who are closely related to the deceased unnatural.
The incident is alleged to have been witnessed by Hanumantha PW 1 , brother of the deceased, and Mannamma PW 4 , mother of the deceased.
The present appeal assails the companyrectness of the said order.
The appellants are alleged to be insisting that they will let water for irrigation flow only if the land purchased by the companyplainant was transferred in their favour.
Instead PW 3 father of the deceased went to lodge a report with the police leaving the injured in a hapless companydition on the spot where he was lying only to wait till 10.00 p.m. at night for the police to arrive.
A charge sheet, after companypletion of investigation, was filed against the appellants before the jurisdictional Court for their companymittal.
1 and 3 also accompanied the injured, but the injured Basavaraj breathed his last on the way.
He also saw A 3 assaulting deceased Basavaraj on the head and A 2 and A 4 also doing so with a stick and stone.
S. THAKUR, J. Leave granted.
These appeals by special leave call in question a judgment and order dated 19th November, 2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Gulbarga whereby Criminal Appeal No.1926 of 2007 has been allowed, judgment and order of the Trial Court acquitting the appellants set aside, and the appellants companyvicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC.
A fine of Rs.5,000/ each and a default sentence of imprisonment for a period one year has also been awarded to the appellant.
PW 3 is then said to have gone to Gurgunta police post to inform the police about the incident and returned at about 6.00 p.m. It was only at about 10.00 p.m. that a Sub Inspector from Hutti police station came to the spot in a Jeep.
The deposition of PW 4 mother of the deceased Basavaraj is also on the same lines.
