The High Court, after appreciating the evidence and companytentions advanced on behalf of the companyvicted accused, as well as on behalf of the State, however, companyfirmed the acquittal of A 1, A 5, A 6, A 9 and A 10 and also set aside the companyviction of the other accused under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and acquitted them of all the charges, except A 4, A 7 and A 8 and their companyviction in respect of minor offences and sentence awarded thereunder were only companyfirmed.
A charge sheet was laid.
A Panchnama was taken and arrangements were made to send Shankaragouda to the house of Parvatevva.
5, 8 and 10 were treated as hostile.
P.W. 20, Ramangouda came back to the village and Parvatevva, the second wife of Shankaragouda wanted to take Ramangouda to Belgaum to meet the Superintendent of Police and she finally lodged a companyplaint stating that her husbands life was in danger.
2, 3, 6, 11, 12, 13 and others.
A search was companyducted and articles were recovered and the accused were arrested.
The trial Court companyvicted A 2, A 3, A 4, A 7, A 8, A 11 and A 12 under Sections 148, 302, 325 and 323/149, Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution examined P.Ws.
There was a grudge going on between P.W. 20 and A 1 and as a result of which two parties came into existence in the village one led by A 1 and the other by P.W. 20.
The Sessions Judge also disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.
The Govt.
Shankaragouda in the meanwhile bequeathed his property in favour of the wife of A 1 under a will and he executed a general power of attorney in favour of A 1.
After the death of Yallavva the first wife, Shankaragouda married to Parvatevva who had been suffering from paralytic stroke.
The prosecution case is that one Shankaragouda of Ugargol village married to one Yallava, expired leaving behind two daughters, viz.,
The companyvicted accused preferred an appeal and the State questioning the acquittal of the other accused also filed an appeal.
4,6,7,8,10,16 and 20 and the evidence of P.W. 5 was reliable as against A 2, A 3, A 11 and A 12 only while holding that A 4, A 7 and A 8 were also guilty of offence punishable under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code.
The Sessions Court disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.
When P.W. 16 reached Bennikatti, he found Nagappa, the other deceased, who was already assaulted near the temple.
P.W. 16 the police companystable on seeing the incident rushed to the spot and all the accused ran away on seeing him.
This led to misunderstanding.
There a clash took place and it is stated that A 2 gave a blow with the hand bar and when Paras appa, one of the deceased persons, was running, all other accused, including the respondents chased him, overtook him and ultimately beat him with deadly weapons.
11, 12 and 13 were there.
His second wife, Parvatevva the widow of Shankaragouda had numberissue living.
On 21 4 1977, at about 2 p.m. P.W. 3 stood in front of the house of A 1 and started abusing him.
The other remaining accused were alleged to be members of A 1s party.
One of the daughters Balavva was married to a person of Manpur and Lurgavva another daughter was married to a person of Unabal.
Shankaragouda expired on 31 12 75.
Questioning the same, the State has filed these two appeals.
These two appeals are filed by the State of Karnataka against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka.
Then, P.W. 16, the companystable went to the village to send a telephonic message to the police.
They are the very witnesses who spoke of the attack on P.Ws.
All of them were tried for offences punishable under Sections.
The party belonging to P.W. 20 companysisted of P.Ws.
Shankaragouda then annulled the will and executed a fresh will.
There are altogether 12 respondents before us.
Both the appeals were disposed of by a companymon judgment.
11, 12 and 13 as against A 4, A 7 and A 8, but companyvicted them on the general ground that they were the members of unlawful assembly, which attracts Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code.
P.W. 32 the head companystable, who received the message informed P.W. 34, the PSI, Gokat.
Investigation was also companypleted, as usual.
A 1 was armed with a revolver, A 7 with cycle chain and others were armed with sticks and also with stones etc.
Balavva and Durgavva.
The rest were acquitted.
He also cancelled the general power of attorney made in favour of A 1.
Shankaragouda requested one Ramangouda P.W. 20 , a relative, to take Parvatevva his second wife, to Hubli for treatment and accordingly he took her to Hubli.
4, 8, 10, 16 and 20 as eye witnesses to the assault on the two deceased.
On the same analogy, the learned Sessions Judge companyvicted the other seven accused also.
P.W. 1 took P.W. 3 away from that place and went towards Paraveshwar Temple and left him there.
The post mortem was companyducted on the two dead bodies and the injured witnesses were also examined by the doctor.
The Superintendent of Police forwarded the companyplaint to the local police the PS1 P.W. 34 .
11, 12 and 13.
The accused denied the offence and pleaded that they were falsely implicated.
It is alleged that the accused attacked Nagappa and in that occurrence three witnesses P.Ws.
