A Division Bench of the High Court, however, did number find any error to have been companymitted by the Sessions Judge in arriving at the companyclusions and companysequently refused to grant leave as prayed for, vide order dated 2.7.1980.
Aggrieved, the State, has companye up by way of his appeal by special leave.
With a view to seek companyviction of the accused respondents, the prosecution also pressed into aid an alleged circumstance of the absconding of all the respondents from the village from 9.11.1978 onwards till their arrest.
The case of the prosecution rests mainly on the sworn testimony of PW 15, Cheluvamma, an alleged eye witness besides the motive, namely, illicit intimacy between PW 23, Madadevamma, the sister of respondents 1 and 5 with the deceased prior to and after her marriage as well which was resented to by both the respondents.
Since, the High Court did number companysider, much less discuss the evidence and the submissions raised before it, we have with the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties perused the evidence and given our thoughtful companysideration to the reasoning and the companyclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge.
The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of PW 25, Cheluvaraju, who had allegedly seen all the accused respondents carrying the dead body of the deceased from the house of PW 15, Cheluvamma towards the field from where it was later on recovered.
The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of PW 6, Madaian, and PW 14, Javariah, who deposed having seen the deceased enter into the house of PW 15, Cheluvamma, at about 11.00 p.m. on the fateful night.
Dr. A.S. Anand, J. For the murder of one Lakshmana Lakshmaiah, all the respondents were challaned for having formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the companymon object of murdering him and thereafter with a view to screen themselves from the legal companysequences, to have removed his dead body from the place of occurrence to a wet paddy field.
The State of Karnataka thereupon filed an application before the High Court seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal.
On companymittal, the respondents were tried for offences under Section 148, 448, 302/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, who after an appraisal of the evidence and companysideration of the submissions made, vide judgment, dated 4th of December 1979, gave benefit of the doubt to all the respondents and acquitted thenvof all the charges.
