That appeal was allowed and setting aside the order of the High Court, this Court companyfirmed the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur.
By a separate order dated June 21, 1981, Shankargouda A 13 , Erangouda A 14 son of Thimmangouda, Erangouda A 15 son of Lingangouda, Mallappa A 16 , Buligappa A 17 , Gulappa A 18 were also companymitted to the Court of Session to stand their trial for the same offenses.
It did number dispel the reasoning of the trial companyrt while acquitting these accused persons.
In our opinion, these seven accused persons A 1, A 3, A 4, A 6, A 8, A 9 and A II came to Raichur from their respective villages variously armed and being members of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like axes and daggers lay in wait for their victims, deceased Shankargouda, and deceased Gowdappagouda and PW 3 Basangouda and on finding them companying, after giving their attendance at Sadar Bazar police station, suddenly attacked them simultaneously.
The learned Sessions Judge thus found that the presence of A 13 to A 1 8 at about 7.10 p.m. at the place of occurrence was highly improbable.
On August 2, 1980 sic charges were framed against A 1 to A 12 for the offenses punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC and in the alternative for an offence under Sections 302/34 IPC for having companymitted the murder of Gowdappagouda s o Bhimangouda and Shankargouda s o Gowdappagouda and for offenses under Sections 324/149 IPC and in the alternative for an offence under Sections 324/34 IPC for causing injuries to Basangouda PW 3 and Rajashekhar PW 11.
The circumstances under which two separate companymitment orders were made and separate charges were framed in respect of the same occurrence against two sets of accused would be dealt with in the latter part of this judgment.
P 22 to P 27, were recorded during their interrogation on April 19, 1979 by PW 21, and after recording a finding that number only were such statements hit by Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, they were also number voluntary and had been introduced only to rope in A13 to A18, against whom there was numberother evidence available to the prosecution rejected those statements.
Charges were framed on February 26, 1981 against A 13 to A 18 for offenses punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC for having companymitted the murder of Gowdappagouda s o Bhimangouda and also under Sections 302/149 IPC and in the alternative for an offence under Sections 302/34 IPC for having companymitted the murder of Shankargouda s o Gowdappagouda and for an offence punishable under Sections 324/149 IPC and in the alternative for an offence under Sections 324/34 IPC on two companynts.
The police had removed Basangouda PW 3, who was companyscious, to the hospital in its jeep.
481 of 1982 was filed by the State against i the acquittal of A 1 to A 11 for the offence under Sections 307/149 IPC and ii against the acquittal of A 12 to A 18 of all the charges.
He obtained the signatures of Basangouda PW 3 on the statement Ex.
Both the witnesses, therefore, stayed at the spot to look after the dead bodies and their relations, thinking that police would record the FIR after getting information from PW 3.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur, thereupon companymitted A 13 to A 18 also to the Court of Session and that is how the trial of A 13 to A 18 was taken up along with trial of A1 to A12 and two different charge sheets and companymitment orders drawn up in respect of one and the same occurrence.
P 3 as narrated by the injured Basanagouda PW 3 to him.
He brought the matter to this Court through Criminal Appeal No.
A 1 to A 11 were, however, acquitted of the offenses under Sections 307/149 IPC.
However, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as regards the participation of A 1, A 3, A 4, A 6, A 8, A 9 and A 11, on the other hand, is sufficiently clear, reliable and companyent.
Vide a companymon judgment, dated January 17, 1983, the High Court accepted the appeal filed by A 1 to A 11 and set aside their companyviction and sentence for various offenses.
481 of 1982 filed against the acquittal of A 1 to A 11 for the offence under Sections 307/149 and of A 12 to A 18.
He rushed to the spot along with two police companystables.
The State of Karnataka has, on special leave being granted, filed two appeals in this Court.
At the trial the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 25 and produced Ex.
The High Court also companysidered and appraised the evidence of various witnesses and came to the companyclusion that A 12 to A 18 had been introduced as an afterthought by the prosecution witnesses on account of their relationship with other accused because of the pronounced enmity between the parties.
Police Sub Inspector of Sadar Bazar Police Station was standing outside the Police Station, regulating the traffic, when he learnt from some rickshawalas and tangawalas that murders had taken place near Petlaburj.
Near Petlaburj road, the accused persons emerged from the side of a ditch variously armed with daggers etc.
He accordingly gave benefit of doubt to A 13 to A 18 and acquitted them of all the charges.
Basangouda PW 3, however, did number let the case rest there.
Basangouda PW 3 also received some injuries and so did Rajashekhar PW 11.
On the date of the occurrence i.e. April 13, 1979 at about 7.10 p.m. the deceased Gowdappagouda along with his son Shankargouda and the other son Shivanagouda PW 6 had gone to Sadar Bazar Police Station, Raichur to mark their attendance.
So far as A 12 to A 18 are companycerned they were acquitted of all the charges.
709 of 1980.
Proceedings under Section 107 CrPC against deceased Gowdappagouda and his party members on the one side and Shankargouda A13 and the members of his party on the other side were also pending in the companyrt of Taluka Executive Magistrate at Devadurga.
Since, Basanagouda PW 3 survived the attack of murder, the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the request of the prosecuting agency, framed a charge against the accused persons for an offence under Sections 307/149 IPC also.
PW 20 sent a companystable to bring jeep from the Police Station and removed PW 3, Basangouda to the District Hospital reaching there at about 7.40 p.m. The injury of Basangouda PW 3 was attended to by Dr Shamsunder Rao PW 5 who admitted Basangouda PW 3 as an indoor patient.
These seven accused persons, in our opinion, had been rightly companyvicted by the learned Sessions Judge for various offenses and the High Court adopted a rather short cut and instead of sifting the evidence on record, companypletely threw out the prosecution evidence and acquitted them.
There were other criminal and civil proceedings pending in various companyrts between the parties.
P 3 to be used as a dying declaration if need arises and went back to the Sadar Bazar Police Station for registration of the case.
The High Court acquitted these accused persons, even though their involvement in the crime had been established, probably influenced by the false involvement of A 1 to A 13 in the crime by PWs 3, 6, 9, 10 and 11.
Sub Inspector Mallanagouda PW 20 thereafter handed over the case papers to the Incharge Crime Police Inspector Ghouse Mohiuddin PW 21 for further investigation.
Basangouda PW 3 was also lying down as a result of the injury received by him.
The learned Sessions Judge companyvicted A 1 to A II for offenses under Sections 147, 148, 324/149 IPC and 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for varying terms but directed the sentences to run companycurrently.
They had also been directed to stay at Raichur proper.
The learned Sessions Judge after a careful appraisal of the evidence on record found that the name of A 12 one of the accused in the first set of accused A 1 to A 12 was number mentioned by PW 3 Basangouda in his companyplaint Ex.
Dr Rao PW 5 told the sub inspector Mallanagouda PW 20 that the companydition of Basanagouda PW 3 was very serious.
The murders were preplanned, companyd blooded and calculated.
Shankargouda was ahead of the remaining party and he was holding the hand of the son of his son, Rajashekhar PW 11.
Rajashekhar PW 11 returned to the spot along with his mother Chinamma and an aunt.
Rajashekhar PW 11 after receiving the injury on his finger ran to his house to inform his mother and aunt about the occurrence.
On reaching Petlaburj he found the dead bodies of Gowdappagouda and Shankargouda lying in a pool of blood.
That was a mistake on the part of the High Court.
Gowdappagouda and his son Shankargouda died as a result of the injuries inflicted on them.
P 21 was accordingly registered for offenses under Sections 147, 148, 323, 302/149 IPC.
and attacked the deceased Shankargouda, Gowdappagouda and Basangouda with their respective weapons.
FIR Ex.
P 21, along with the statement of Basanagouda, Ex.
Instead of appraising the evidence of these witnesses in the light of other evidence and the record the High Court appears to have believed that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus was a sound principle to follow.
P 1 to P 49 beside material objects 1 to 28 including the weapons recovered pursuant to the statements made under Section 27, Evidence Act, The accused persons, A 1 to A 18 in their statements under Section 313 IPC admitted that there was long standing enmity and hostility between them on the one hand and the deceased persons, PW 3, PW 6 and PW 9 on the other hand and that there were cases and companynter ,cases pending between the parties but denied the prosecution allegations or their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication.
FIR Ex.
After companypleting the investigation and seizing various articles from the place of occurrence, all the accused, A 1 to A 18 were sent up for trial as numbericed in the earlier part of this judgment.
On a careful companysideration of the testimony of PWs 3, 6, 9 and IO and PW II, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has number been able to establish the case against A 2, A 5, A 7 and A10 beyond a reasonable doubt.
The wife of Shivanagouda PW 6 and the wife of deceased Shankargouda were also staying at Raichur to take care of the household duties.
PW 21 Ghouse Mohiuddin and other senior police officials, including the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police, had satisfied themselves from the records available at Deodurg police station about the presence of the accused persons A 13 to A18 at Deodurg police station and their attendance had been recorded by the PSI Zahur at the police station near about the time of occurrence.
Two appeals were preferred in the High Court of Karnataka.
The relationship between the parties were totally strained and there was pronounced hostility between the two factions on account of various criminal and civil proceedings pending between them.
The learned Sessions Judge scrutinized the evidence of PW 3, PW 6, PW 9, PW 10 and PW 11 with a view to determine the involvement or otherwise of A 13 to A 18.
A crowd of people had gathered at the place of occurrence.
All these accused persons shared the companymon object of companymitting the murders of Shankargouda and Gowdappagouda and of causing injuries to PW 3 Basangouda.
220 of 1982 was filed by A 1 to A 11 against their companyviction and sentence while Criminal Appeal No.
Criminal Appeal No.
These directions had been given to them in a companyplaint case during the trial of a criminal case filed by A 18.
Shivanagouda PW 6, Mallikarjuna PW 10 and Parvatareddy PW 9 ran away for their safety from the spot.
P 3, was sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Executive Magistrate Mohammed Alauddin PW 8 was companytacted and requested to companye to the hospital to record the dying declaration of Basangouda PW 3 as it was suspected that he might die as a result of the injury received by him according to the opinion of Dr Shamsunder Rao, PW 5.
The trial companyrt found that from the evidence produced by the prosecution itself, it had been established that A 13 to A 1 8 were present at Deodurg police station and that at about 8.00 p.m. on the day of the occurrence they were present near a hotel at the bus stand at Deodurg.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR ANAND, J. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur companymitted Bhimappa A 1 , Karibasappa A 2 , Gobbi Hanumantha A 3 , Talwar Lingappa A 4 , Basangouda A 5 , Jamappa A 6 , Gulappa A 7 , Lachmappa A 8 , Mallikarjun A 9 , Shekharappa A 10 , Gowdappa A 11 , Amaregouda A 12 by an order dated June 13, 1980 to stand their trial for offenses punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149, 324/149 IPC.
It was found that there were material companytradictions in the testimony of these witnesses as regards the involvement of A 13 to A 1 8.
The Executive Magistrate PW 8 accordingly reached the District Hospital at about 10 p.m. and recorded the statement of Basanagouda PW 3 treating it to be a dying declaration in the presence of Dr Rao PW 5.
Sub inspector Mallanagouda PW 20 thereupon recorded the statement, Ex.
After marking their attendance at the Sadar Bazar Police Station, the aforesaid persons proceeded towards their rented house at Raichur.
We shall number take up the State appeal against the acquittal of A 1 to A 11.
Thus, PW 6 and PW 9 cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that they did number lodge any report with the police about the occurrence.
Basangouda PW 3 , Mallikarjuna PW 10 , Paravatareddy PW 9 and Rajashekhar PW 11 had accompanied them to the Police Station.
