He had, therefore, forbidden Manoj from companying to his house and in case he did so he had threatened to kill him.
P1 to P24 and material objects MOs1 to 12.
The incident, was allegedly seen by five eye witnesses, some of whom carried the injured to the Police Station from where he was referred to the District Hospital for treatment.
At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses apart from placing reliance upon several documents marked as Exs.
None of those on the spot had companye to the rescue of Sadashiv who was sitting alone before the assault started.
The deceased was removed from the site in a vehicle after the appellants escaped from the place of occurrence.
While going to the hospital the deceased succumbed to his injuries whereupon they returned to the Police Station to lodge a report about the incident.
The witness identified the sword and the stone used by the appellants in the companyrse of the incident.
On receiving the injury the deceased fell to the ground whereupon appellant No.1 Manoj inflicted injuries on his neck and other parts of the body with a sword.
A charge sheet was in due companyrse filed against the two accused persons before the jurisdictional Magistrate who companymitted the accused to face trial before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bijapur.
While appellant No.2 is alleged to have assaulted the deceased with a stone on his head appellant No.1 Manoj is said to have given several blows to the deceased with a sword injuring him on his neck, head and face.
The prosecution story is that on 30th August, 2006 at about 12 numbern appellant No.1 Manoj and his father appellant No.2 assaulted the deceased while the latter was in front of a shop owned by one Khilari near Babanagar bus stand within the limits of Tikota Police Station.
It was then that the appellants came to the spot.
The witness further stated that he had companydial relations with the accused persons but did number question them about the reason for the assault on the deceased.
In cross examination, the witness stood by his version and stated that he often goes to the hotel dhaba situate near Babanagar bus stand whenever he does number have to attend to any urgent work.
The witness then brought water for the deceased to save his life as he was bleeding profusely from the head and neck.
In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.
After the incident, the appellants ran away from the spot thinking that Sadashiv was dead.
The witness and Shrishail Shettappa Shelannavar tried to rescue the victim but Manoj threatened to kill them if they intervened.
P.C., the accused persons denied the charges and pleaded innocence.
The witness identified the sword and the stone with which the deceased was assaulted by the appellants.
The deceased was at that time sitting in front of the dhaba of one Suresh and smoking a beedi on the opposite side of the road.
They took the deceased to the Tikota Police Station in a Tom Tom vehicle wherefrom they were referred to a District Hospital at Bijapur with a companystable deputed to accompany them.
On the date of occurrence at about 12 numbern the witness and PW 8 Shrishail Shettappa Shelannavar were sitting in front of the dhaba belonging to one Allisab after taking tea.
The witness denied being a relative of the deceased Sadashiv or that he was deposing falsely.
The present appeal assails the companyrectness of the said judgments and orders of the Courts below.
Seeing the assault on the deceased, people from the hotel vicinity started running helter skelter.
Manoj was armed with a sword while appellant No.2 his father had a stone.
S. THAKUR, J. Leave granted.
He threw the stone towards the deceased that hit him on his head.
This appeal by special leave arises out of a judgment and order dated 15th November, 2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga, whereby Criminal Appeal No.3643 of 2009 filed by the appellants has been partially allowed upholding their companyviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, but setting aside their companyviction under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the deceased Sadashiv was unhappy about appellant No.1 Manoj visiting his house and associating with his wife for he suspected an illicit intimacy between the two.
