She tried to wake up her son deceased but he insisted on sleeping since it was dark and said that he will get up after sun rise.
They came saying that they will finish the deceased.
The trial Court held that out of the four witnesses examined as eye witnesses, two, namely PW.8 and PW.9 turned hostile and did number support the case of the prosecution.
While PW 3 left for Muddebihal, she started washing utensils at a place which was at a distance of about 2 meters from the katta where the deceased was sleeping.
8 and 9 did number support the case of the prosecution, they were declared hostile.
At about 6.00 a.m. the appellants came and finding her son sleeping on the katta said that they will number spare Lakshman deceased .
From that day onwards the appellants were moving about in the village saying that the deceased had insulted their sister and, therefore, they will number spare him and will finish him.
While appellant No.2 was armed with an axe the other two were armed with Jambiya.
On an appreciation of their evidence the trial companyrt held that PW 2 had number really witnessed the occurrence while PW 1 was number a truthful witness.
PW 3 wanted the deceased to accompany him to Muddebihal but he insisted on sleeping and stated that he will companye to Muddebihal with food by 9 O clock bus.
In this background the occurrence took place on May 30, 1996.
Nimbavva, mother of the deceased and PW 2, Ayyappa, the younger brother of the deceased, aged about 12 years.
She thereafter started sweeping and washing utensils.
It is stated that her husband got up at 5.00 a.m. in the morning since he had to go to Muddebihal .
The appellants were charged of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having companymitted the murder of Lakshman at about 6.00 a.m. on May 30, 1996 while he was sleeping on the katta of his house.
PW 1 and PW 2 also woke up with him.
So saying, appellant No.2 assaulted the deceased on his neck twice or thrice with an axe while the remaining accused assaulted him with Jambiyas on his back and thigh.
In spite of her begging of them number to do so, they started assaulting the deceased.
Accordingly the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
Their evidence was, therefore, of numberassistance to the prosecution.
The case of the prosecution is that on May 30, 1996 the deceased was sleeping on the kattain the outer portion of the house by the side of the road, while the remaining members of the family were sleeping inside.
The trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that he was number an eye witness and, therefore, placed numberreliance on his testimony.
They then ran away saying that they had finished Lakshman.
The dead body of the deceased was then sent for post mortem examination.
PWs 8 and 9 of the neighborhood also witnessed the assault.
According to PW 1 on May 30, 1996 her husband Basappa, PW 3 woke up at about 5.00 a.m. since he had to go to Muddebihal.
It was alleged that out of anger and to take revenge for her son having illicit companynection with Renuka, the appellants had companymitted the murder of her son.
At about that time she numbericed the three accused variously armed companying there.
The High Court on re appreciation of the evidence on record came to the companytrary companyclusion that PWs.
In the First Information Report lodged by PW 1, it was stated that about 3 months before the date of occurrence, her son Lakshman, the deceased, who had illicit companynection with Renuka sister of appellant No.2 was seen following Renuka while she was going to wash clothes to the village nallah.
Thereafter the mother and mother in law of Renuka had companye to her house and abused the deceased in filthy language.
Apart from the mother, PW 1, the other witness PW 2 was the younger brother of the deceased.
Since PWs.
The Principal Sessions Judge, Bijapur, who tried the appellants in Sessions Case No.144 of 1998 acquitted them of the charge by his judgment and order of September 14, 1998.
People of village had seen him following Renuka and with a view to protect her reputation Renuka companyplained to her mother and mother in law about the deceased dragging her.
The remaining two witnesses were PW 1, Smt.
Her son died on the spot.
The evidence on record discloses that all the three appellants are the neighbours of PW.1.
1485 of 1998.
P. Singh, J. The appellants have appealed to this Court by special leave against their companyviction and sentence passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore on 26th May, 2004 in Criminal Appeal No.
According to her a police havaldar came to her house after about 4 5 hours and recorded the information given by her.
She further stated in the FIR that her mother in law and her son PW 2 came out and witnessed the occurrence.
At about 12 numbern an Inspector came who held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and took other steps in the companyrse of investigation.
There is evidence on record to the effect that at about 5.00 a.m. it was dark but at about 6.00 a.m. there was some light as the sun was about to rise.
