The deceased suffered 12 injuries.
Paddamma PW.1 and Bheemava, mother of the deceased went to save the deceased, but they too, were threatened with assault.
The deceased Bheemanna had numberland in close proximity to the land of A 2.
1132 of 2001, filed by the State.
839 of 2001 and the State of Karnataka filed Criminal Appeal No.
Laceration of lower lobe of lung, size 1.5 X 0.5 Blood present in the thorax about 200 ML.
The appellants used axes, and the wooden part of a plough to injure her husband.
Thus, a Panchayat was companyvened in the village, wherein it was decided that neither of the parties will enter the others land, to use the same as a pathway.
Lacerated injuries were 5 in number, though the same were simple in nature and they companyld number have been caused by the blunt portion of an axe or by using a stick.
Thus, number companyvicting them for the said injuries and restricting their companyviction under Sections 447 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC cannot be justified.
A Panchayat was companyvened to resolve the dispute, and the parties were restrained from using the others land as passageway.
Her husband, as a result, fell down.
The inquest was companyducted over the dead body of the deceased Bheemanna in the presence of Panchas, including Basawarajaiah PW.2 .
Being aggrieved, Bhimanna A 2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.
Upon the advice of the police, the deceased was taken in a mini lorry, driven by Mahadevappa PW.10 to Deodurga Hospital and when they reached there at 8.00 p.m., the doctor declared Bheemanna dead.
The post mortem was companyducted by Dr. Patil Prabhakar PW.12 .
Upon companyclusion of the trial in Sessions Case No.
On 17.11.1999 at about 4.00 p.m., Yenkappa A 1 , alongwith Bhimanna A 2 and Suganna A 3 , was returning home with agricultural implements i.e. axes and a plough.
There was some dispute regarding the pathway between them.
On the basis of the companyplaint submitted by Paddamma PW.1 , an FIR was lodged at 8.15 p.m. under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 323 and 504 read with Section 149 IPC.
The accused persons left the place after assaulting the deceased, throwing away the axes and wooden part of the plough.
Therefore, the question of any dispute companyld number arise.
So far as the injuries are companycerned, Dr. Patil Prabhakar PW.12 has clarified in his cross examination that the injury Nos.
The same was proved by way of companyent evidence and the companyrts below failed to appreciate the same in the companyrect perspective.
Rangayya PW.6 brought a bullock cart as asked by Paddamma PW.1 from the village and the deceased was then taken to Ramdurga Police Station.
Yenkappa A 1 owns land adjacent to the land of the deceased Bheemanna in revenue estate of village Buddinni, Police Station Ramdurga, in the district of Raichur.
The trial Courts decision cannot be justified in regard to the fact that charges were number framed against A 1 and A 3 by it, for any other offence owing to the fact that, the same was number provided for by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet filed by him.
At the time of autopsy, the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased Bheemanna ?
Investigation was initiated by Rajashekhar PW.14 , Circle Inspector.
The investigating officer recovered the axes and the wooden part of the plough used in the crime and sent the same for FSL examination and, subsequently, the three appellants were also arrested.
Bheemava, mother of the deceased, was in fact present at the place of occurrence, and has number been examined by the prosecution.
Thus, the prosecution is guilty of withholding a material witness.
1 and 12 were grievous in nature and were actually responsible for the death of the deceased Bheemanna.
After companypletion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 504, 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Contusion of size 5 x 1 situated in the left side of the arm directed above downwards from shoulder.
1132 of 2001 against the accused Yenkappa A 1 and Suganna A 3 .
The presence of witnesses, particularly Paddamma PW.1 and Rangayya PW.6 , is doubtful, for the reason that Paddamma PW.1 had given birth to a girl child only one month before the date of such incident, and it was thus highly unlikely, that in such a physical companydition, she would be able to do any agricultural work.
There was a dispute between Yenkappa and the deceased over the land of the deceased as, deceased refused to give him right of passage through his land.
Yenkappa A 1 assaulted the deceased with Meli Wooden part of a plough .
Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are as follows As per the case of the prosecution, Yenkappa A 1 , appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
46 of 2005, and Suganna A 3 , is the nephew of Yenkappa A 1 .
After re appreciation of the evidence on record, the High Court reached the companyrect companyclusion that all three appellants were responsible for the homicidal death of Bheemanna.
In the opinion of the Dr. Patil Prabhakar PW.12 , injury number.
171 of 2005 is the father of Bhimanna A 2 , who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
Deceased Bheemanna was the nephew of Yenkappa A 1 .
40 of 2000, the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 19.6.2001, companyvicted Bhimanna A 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 504, 302 read with Section 34 IPC and awarded him life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/ .
On the companytrary, Shri V.N. Raghupathy, learned standing companynsel appearing for the State has opposed the appeals, companytending that numberfault can be found with the judgment of the High Court.
1 and 12 companyld have been caused by Bhimanna A 2 , and thus, as a natural companyollary, injury number.
Incised wound of size 3 X 0.75 X brain deep situated in the middle of the head.
When she tried to save him, she too, was threatened by the appellants.
So far as Yenkappa A 1 and Suganna A 3 are companycerned, they were only companyvicted under Sections 447, 504 read with Section 34 IPC.
2 to 11 would have been caused by Yenkappa A 1 and Suganna A 3 .
Similar threats were hurled when Rangayya PW.6 , nephew of the deceased and his father Hanumappa approached the place of occurrence.
839 of 2001 and allowing Criminal Appeal No.
B.S. CHAUHAN, J. Both these appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 31st March, 2004 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.
