Today at about 8.30 p.m. night, I was sitting in front of shaving shop by the side of shop of Javaregowda on K.R.S. Majigepura Road along with Vyramudi, Prakash and Umesh.
P 22 .
The trial Court, however, held that it was number safe to act on the dying declaration Ex.
In the companyrse of investigation, 37 witnesses were examined.
P 22 .
It is from this judgment that these appeals, by special leave, have arisen.
The three eye witnesses PW 4, PW 5 and PW 15 have turned hostile to the case of prosecution and have number supported the prosecution version at all.
The companycerned Magistrate then companymitted the accused to the companyrt of Sessions for trial.
P 22 and the evidence of PW 25, PW 36 and PW 30 companycluded that the time of recording Ex.
The State of Karnataka preferred an appeal before the Karnataka High Court against the judgment of the Fast Track Court I, Mandya acquitting the accused.
P 22 recorded by the police on 17.08.2002 between 9.55 P.M. and 10.20 P.M. at K.R. Hospital, Mandya triggered the prosecution of the appellants and one Swamy.
Exhibit P 22 is recorded by PW 30 Rajashekar on the oration of PW 36 Kodandaram, PSI in the presence of PW 25 Dr. Balakrishna .
The trial companyrt by its judgment dated 28.09.2004 on companysideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence reached the companyclusion that prosecution had failed to prove the offence against the accused persons and, accordingly, acquitted them.
The prosecution examined 37 witnesses of which PW 4 Umesha , PW 5 Prakash and PW 15 Vyramudi were produced as eye witnesses.
In the circumstances, the only evidence that has become significant is the dying declaration Ex.
The investigating officer, on companypletion of investigation, submitted challan against Naga Bagaraju A 1 , Jaga Santhosh Kumar A 2 , S. Sathish Gunda A 3 , Muralidhar Gidda A 4 , Swamy Koshi A 5 and Manju A 6 .
P 22 did number inspire companyfidence and the credibility of Exhibit P 22 had number been established to the satisfaction of the companyrt and companyviction cannot be based on Exhibit P 22 and the deposition of PW 36, PW 25 and PW 30.
P 22 is in Kannada, which in English translation reads The statement of Pradeep son of Swamygowda, 28 years, Vakkaligaru by companymunity, agriculturist residing at Majigepura village, Srirangapatna Taluk.
The Court of Sessions Judge, Fast Track CourtI, Mandya companyducted the trial against A 1 to A 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 144, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short, IPC .
After registration of the First Information Report Exhibit P 5 on the basis of the above statement made by Pradeep which has become dying declaration in view of his death, the investigation companymenced.
The statement Ex.
M. LODHA, J. These three criminal appeals arise from the companymon judgment and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by the companymon judgment.
The trial companyrt on companysideration of Ex.
Prakash ran away.
Please take action against those who have attempted to kill me.
