An enquiry was companyducted by SDM with regard to the cause of death of the deceased and the report was submitted on 31.10.1983.
Further, the statement of PW.1 as referred above is well companyroborated by the medical evidence in material particular.
He further stated that later about 2.00 p.m. the PSI took him to Devargudda in the jeep and when they returned from Devaragudda at 5.30 p.m. he saw deceased being Page 872 brought by the Police Constable by name Patil from the Hospital to the Police Station in the auto rickshaw.
Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been preferred by special leave.
In this case the High Court relied upon the evidence of PW.13 and the evidence of PW.1 who is an eye witness.
1, are the Police Constables A2 to A5 went along with jeep driven by PW.13 to bring the deceased Guddappa in the jeep to the Police Station.
181/1988 was registered in which all the accused were named.
Station.
1 was working as PSI in the town Police Station at Ranebennur.
Abrasion measuring 1 cm.
Both the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
1 at the said Police Station.
Later on he heard that his brother had died.
While standing in front of the police station he saw the police were assaulting his brother in lockup room.
Thereafter, charge was framed against the appellants under Sections 330/348/201 as aforesaid.
He further stated that the appellants Constables thereafter got down from the jeep and after about 15 minutes they brought the deceased Guddappa along with them and put him in the jeep and after that he brought the deceased Guddappa and above said Constables to the Police Station in the jeep driven by him at 9,30 a.m. He categorically stated that when he brought the deceased accused to the Police Station at about 9.30 a.m. accused No.
When PW.1 returned from working his wife told him that his brother had number companye back from work and, therefore, he went to Guttal Bus stand where he came to know that the police had taken away his brother and then next day that is on 19.10.1988 at about 12 numbern he went to the Police Station but the police had number allowed him to enter in the police station.
The High Court, on re appraisal of the evidence on record and particularly after examining the evidence of PW.13 the Police Driver and of the eye witness PW.1 Parasappa Parasurama came to the companyclusion that the prosecution case against the appellants was found well established and companyvicted the appellants as aforesaid.
Similarly, the companytention of the companynsel for number production of the companyplaint said to have been lodged by PW.1 is inconsequential having regard the evidence of PW.1 and PW.13 as referred above.
The undisputed fact remains that at the relevant time A1 was in charge of Police Station.
He has also stated that on the direction of appellant No.
State, the High Court acquitted one of the accused and companyvicted the five appellants before us under Section 330 and sentenced them to six months RI.
X 0.5 cm.
PW.1 specifically stated that his brother was working as a companyli in Guttal Bus stand whereas he was working as hamali work.
He has categorically stated that at the relevant period of incident appellant No.
We are number at all impressed by the companytention of the learned companynsel for the appellants.
The prosecution case in brief is that in companynection with FIR case Crime No.
Pursuant to the report an FIR was lodged on 6.11.1988 Page 870 where all the accused were named.
1 the Police Constables went along with PW.13 in a jeep driven by PW.13 and arrested the deceased.
He named the Police Constables namely Aramani, Krishna, Hosamani and Madival and accused No.
2 to 5 were acting as the Police Constables under appellant No.
168 of 1988 for an offence under Section 302 IPC the deceased Guddappa was arrested on 19.10.1988 on the direction of Al by A2 to A5 and deceased expired by hanging in the Police Station on 20.10.1988.
The injuries sustained by deceased Guddappa leading to his death were caused in the said Police Station.
He was taken to hospital and died on the way.
The accused No.
The High Court also heavily relied upon the evidence of PW.1 Parasappa Parasurama.
5 at that time was present in front of the police station and he had number allowed him to enter in the police station.
1 was acting as the PSI, Ranebennur Police Station and the appellant Nos.
He has specifically stated that the appellants who were directed by accused No.
PW.13 is the Police Driver.
On appeal being preferred by the .
The High Court also found all of them guilty under Section 348 IPC and sentenced them three months RI.
present 1 cm.
K. Sema, J. Page 869 Heard the parties.
below the left patella bone knee cap reddish in companyour.
The trial companyrt after companycluding the trial acquitted all the accused.
On the basis of the companyplaint lodged an FIR Cr.
A2 to A5 were acting as Police Constables in the said Police.
