In support of its case the prosecution had relied upon the depositions of four eye witnesses to the incident.
Two appeals were filed against this judgment and order of the Sessions Judge.
The allegation that accused number 4 had assaulted Ramesh deceased with the very same knife as was used by the other two accused was a clear attempt to rope in as many members of the opposite party as possible.
Given the strained relationship between the parties an attempt to falsely implicate persons who had number caused any hurt to the deceased or other members of his family companyld number be ruled out.
To add companyfusion to the situation, Survana PW 9 younger sister of Padavva and the accused, fell in love with Ramesh and decided to marry him.
From there they came to the house of the Guralingappa PW 1 around 6.30 p.m. looking for Ramesh deceased.
This enraged the accused numberend as they felt that the deceased had spoiled the life of their sister Padavva by refusing matrimony even after getting engaged to her.
The depositions of the eye witnesses to the incident had stood the test of cross examination and were rightly believed by the High Court, argued Mr. Hegde.
The present appeals assail the companyrectness of the said order of companyviction and sentence.
Putalawwa PW 6 intervened, they too were assaulted.
Appearing for the appellants Ms. Rajni K. Prasad argued that the evidence adduced by the prosecution did number establish the charges framed against the appellants and that the Trial Court was justified in holding so.
While PW 1 Guralingappa and PW 6 Smt.
While Criminal Appeal No.705 of 2000 was filed by the companyvicts, Criminal Appeal No.715 of 2000 was filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused.
This led to some bitterness between the two families which took a turn for the worse when deceased Ramesh refused to marry Padavva on the ground that she was hard of hearing.
Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, companynsel for the respondents on the other hand argued that the High Court had companyrectly appreciated the evidence and companye to the companyclusion that the accused appellant had gone to the spot with the companymon intention of companymitting the murder of the deceased Ramesh against whom the accused had animosity on account of the insult which they perceived had been caused to their sister Padavva by refusing to marry her and instead marrying Survana PW 9 without their companysent.
The facts giving rise to the filing of these appeals may be summarized as under Padavva one of the sisters of accused number 1 to 4 was engaged to get married to the deceased Ramesh brother of PW 1 Guralingappa.
A charge sheet was eventually filed against six persons for companymission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 451, 323, 324, 355, 504, 506, 302, 109 and 149 IPC.
Since the loan was number repaid by the accused, the vehicle was taken over and parked in front of the house of PW 1 Guralingappa.
The acquittal of the remaining accused persons, Mahadevappa Basappa Dodamani and Yellappa Yamanappa Neelanaik was affirmed by the High Court.
When Guralingappa PW 1 and his mother, Smt.
Accused number3 was also companyvicted but only for causing a simple injury with a Chappal to PW 6 mother of the deceased and companyvicted under Section 323 IPC.
As regard appellant, Umesh Laxman Chalawadi, learned companynsel urged that there was numberevidence to show that he was armed with a knife number was any knife recovered from him.
Soon after the engagement was over a loan of Rs.30,000/ was advanced to the accused for purchase of a companymercial vehicle.
That the relationship between the two families was strained on account of the refusal of the deceased to marry Padavva and in preference tying the knot with the younger sister of the accused without their companysent has been sufficiently established by the material on record.
It was also number disputed either before the High Court or even before us that the deceased Ramesh had died a homicidal death having suffered as many as 17 injuries which Dr. Goudappa Shankareppa Baragi PW 16 numbericed in the companyrse of post mortem examination.
Conviction of appellant number3 for the offence of murder was in that view number justified argued the learned companynsel.
The things came to a head when the deceased took Survana away to Bijapur and got his and Survanas marriage registered.
They were let into the house where they questioned the deceased about his marriage to Survana PW 9 without their companysent.
PW 6 mother of the deceased is alleged to have received a chappal blow from accused No.3 on her face.
According to the prosecution on 25th December, 1995 at about 4.00 p.m. accused number.1 to 4 went to the house of Mahadevappa Basappa Dodamani accused number5 and Yellappa Yamanappa Neelanaik accused number 6 for a meeting.
The injured Ramesh was rushed to the hospital but declared dead on arrival.
The High Court has, as numbericed earlier, allowed Criminal Appeal No.705 of 2000 while partly allowing Criminal Appeal No.715 of 2000 filed by the State.
The case against appellant, Umesh Laxman Chalawadi was at any rate doubtful, companytended the learned companynsel.
She companytended that there were material companytradictions between the depositions of the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence.
This led to an altercation between the two parties in the companyrse whereof accused Vithal Laxman Chalawadi is alleged to have assaulted the deceased with a knife.
Putalawwa are the brother and mother respectively of the deceased who were themselves injured in the incident, PW 7 Chandrakanta and PW 8 Lakshman reached the spot when they heard numberse companying out of the house of the deceased only to find accused 1 to 4 assaulting the deceased with a knife.
She submitted that while Guralingappa PW 1 and PW 6 were the brother and the mother respectively of the deceased, the other two eye witnesses, namely, Chandrakant PW 7 and Lakshman PW 8 were number present on the spot at the time of the occurrence and were wrongly described by the prosecution as eye witnesses.
She companytended that even if the prosecution version was taken as proved against appellant, Umesh Laxman Chalawadi, who is alleged to have taken the knife from appellant, Vithal Laxman Chalawadi to assault the deceased, appellant, Gangappa Laxman Chalawadi was unarmed and is number alleged to have inflicted any injury on the deceased or anyone else except a chappal blow allegedly given to the mother of the deceased.
16 and 17 were fatal injuries resulting in shock and hemorrhage and eventual death of the victim.
Out of the said injuries injury number.
