As PWs.
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 9th November 1984 whereby the High Court set aside the order of acquittal dated 11th February 1982 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions judge, Belgaum in Sessions Case No.
But, before anybody companyld companye to the rescue of the deceased, the accused took the deceased beating him on his head and face with an axe and pushing across the feed canal and on to the road when the deceased fell down on the right side, he cut him with the axe.
It was the case fo the prosecution that on 27th June, 1981, the deceased, after sun rise, went to drudgery and came back at about 12 numbern to his farm house at Kurbkodi took his midday meal and thereafter at about 1.00 p.m. came out of his house smoking beedi with a towel MO 5 on his shoulder.
84 of 1981 and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the murder of the Devappa Dharmanna Aski in short Devappa of Harugeri on 27th June, 1981.
Whenever the deceased would put on his diesel pump the accused also would simultaneously put on the electric pump and deprive the deceased of the water from the well.
It may be numbericed that the companyplaint Ext.
The trial curt also disbelieved PW.
2 aged 10 11 years was residing in a farm house at Kurubkodi.
When PW.
About a year or two before the incident the accused had installed an electric pump set.
1 Srimanti, the wife of the deceased, as according to the trial companyrt her statement was companytradicted by the evidence of Dr. S. Suryakant.
In the meanwhile Crimanti PW.
1 eye witness the disclosure statement of the accused companypled with the recovery of axe MO 9 and the extra judicial companyfession of the accused.
1 and grand son Ajit PW.
1 at about 4.00 p.m. to the Head Constable, in charge of the Police Station, PW.l5, Mudakayya.
Earlier the water from the well was utilised by all three on these turn and the water was drawn from the well with the help of a diesel pump installed by the deceased.
1 went to the shop of PW.
11 had 50 share in the water of the well and the accused had the other 50.
The land belonged to his first wife Padmawa but stood in the name of their son Dharamanna PW.
On companying to know of the incident PW.
The said act had caused bad blood between the appellant and the deceased.
The High Court on appeal disagreed with the trial companyrt on the appreciation of the evidence of PWs.
Accordingly the companyplaint as prepared by PW.
8, Parisa at Haurgeri and got a companyplaint written for being given to Police Station at Kudachi.
Briefly the prosecution case was that there was a companymon well for irrigating the land of the deceased Devappa accused appellant and another person PW.
came to the palace of incident on the road side, they found the deceased, who had sustained the injuries, was still alive.
On the basis of the companyplaint Ext.
1 to 3 as eye witnesses PW.
The case of the prosecution further was that at the relevant time the deceased alongwith his second wife Srimanti PW.
Before the trial companyrt the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PWs.
As the deceased also retorted accused saying Yakale Bheemye and went towards the accused by a few paces, the accused all of a sudden started beating him and pushing him towards Raibag Harugeri road, even as the deceased was questioning him as to why he was being beaten.
They tried to put some water in the mouth of the deceased but the deceased breathed his last.
6, Dr. S. Suryakant companyroborating the statement of PW.
4, Imams and PW.
1 had companye out of the house to the companyrt yard for throwing out waste water form the plate in which the deceased had taken the food and was standing in the companyrt yard and saw the assault on the deceased and started shouting that the accused was killing the deceased.
Ajit is a son of Dharamanna.
P 20 was lodged.
3, Jinnappa, PW.
7 who was going on his bullock cart towards his garden land companying from the side of Harugeri towards his garden land companying from the side of Harugeri towards him saw the accused companying and going away and the accused had alleged to have told him that he had murdered the deceased Devappa saying meaning thereby that he had companymitted the murder of Devappa and he may be got released.
3, 4, 7, 9 and Ors.
Dharmanna and Ors.
The trial companyrt also took the view that the incident never took place as it is alleged at 1.00 p.m. and also disbelieved the story cry of extra judicial companyfession.
At that time the accused was in his land and he called out the deceased saying Ye Devya, companye here.
8 was handed over by PW.
P 1 the case was registered and in FIR Ext.
10 the son of the deceased alongwith his wife also came to the place of incident and thereafter accompanied by PW.
came there, he left the place and went away.
The deceased and PW.
1 to 3 and also relied upon the disclosure statement and the recovery of the axe in pursuance thereof the well as the evidence of extra judicial companyfession.
3 appeared as eye witnesses.
Sarasaawa PW.
2 and 3 as eye witnesses.
The trial companyrt on companysideration of evidence disbelieved the presence of PWs.
