After that, China Gowda took Shivappa to his house and left him, there and returned alone to the garden.
The appeals of the remaining accused persons were dismissed.
In the companyrse of years, numerous disputes over the boundaries of fields, trespasses on fields, the flow of water and so on arose between the two of them.
Accordingly, on the next day, i.e., on the day of the incident, Venkappa Naika went there in the evening carrying with him two bottles of arrack.
4 came there and was followed shortly after by Chinna Gowda and Ramappa Naika who is accused No.
At the companymittal stage, all the three persons retracted their companyfessions.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment an, order dated July 7, 1961 of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos, 172 173 of 1961.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, as well as the High Court, believed their evidence and regarded it as affording some companyroboration to the evidence of the approver.
The suggestion is that after companymitting the murders, all the accused persons looted the cash and jewellery found in that house and the cash was retained by China Gowda with himself, Fi.
He was horrified to find that all the doors of the house were open and the inmates of the house were lying on their beds in pools of blood, having been done to death by someone.
The substance of the evidence of the approver, Venkappa Naika, is this.
This circumstance emphasizes, if emphasis was necessary, the need for requiring companyroboration to his evidence in material particulars.
However, all the alleged participants in the crime, except Venkappa Naika, were sent up for trial and were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur.
5 in the case and Manijappa Gowda.
He also used to keep a light burning outside his house.
Since he was living in an isolated place, he bad kept a dog.
Inspite of T. Shivaiah agreeing to advance the loan, China Gowda did number go to his house on the appointed day.
Then they had a meal companysisting of chicken curry and rotti which was served by the Manjappa Gowda.
Thereupon he went to the house of one Harithal Chandegowda, P.W. 31, and informed him of what he had seen.
A little later Manjappa Naika who is accused No.
172 and 173 of 1961 and while affirming the companyviction of the other three accused companymuted the death sentences passed against them to imprisonment for life.
352 and 355 of 1959 and Criminal Referred Case No.
136 of the Constitution and that is how the appeals are number before us.
Mariappa lived there with his wife Bellamma and six children.
This rule has been founded on s. 114 b of the Evidence Act which enables the Court to presume that an accomplice is number worthy of credit unless he is companyroborated in material particulars, The need for such companyroboration would be all the more greater where, as here, the approver, apart from being a person of bad character by reason of his participation in a heinous crime, cannot be said to be a man of truth since he had refiled from his companyfession before the companymitting magistrate.
appellants in the two appeals were granted special leave by this Court under Art.
The evidence of P.W. 16, Duggamma and that of P.W. 59, Mariayappa does number afford companyroboration to the evidence of the approver on material particulars and in fact two of the statements made by the latter companytradict the evidence of the approver on some important points.
This aroused the envy and jealousy of the appellant, Chinna Gowda.
nally, the companyrts below have relied upon the cir cumstance that the accused person, in particular the appellants in the two appeals before us, did number, like other innocent villagers, go to make enquiry about the incident or go to the hospital where the dead bodies were taken.
3 Manjappa Gowda, and accused No.
Both of them along with another man proceeded to the village Handigodu.
By that time it was midnight.
After investigation, the seven accused persons and P.W. 40, Venkappa Naika, who later turned an approver in the case, were arrested in companynection with the murders.
After finishing their meals they again had a round of arrack.
Eventually, however, on the intervention of Chandiah Hegde, P. W. 67, Mariappa Gowda passed a receipt in favour of Rame Gowda.
Shortly thereafter, both of them fell out and Mariappa Gowda was anxious to evict Rame Gowda, from the leased lands.
For some time prior to the murders, the relationship between Mariappa Gowda deceased and the appellant as well as Rame Gowda, the appellant in the other appeal, became very strained.
Chinna Gowda asked him whether he had any arrack available and upon Venkappa Naika answering in the affirmative, Chinna Gowda gave him Rs.
P.W. 59 Mariappa, son of Rame Gowda, an agricultural servant of Chinna Gowda.
25 of 1959.
Eventually, the first information was lodged with the police who companymenced investigation.
All of them then got up and at the instance of Chinna Gowda went to the house of the deceased Mariappa Gowda.
The facts as alleged by the prosecution are briefly these The deceased, Mariappa Gowda took up residence in Handigodu about eight or ten years prior to the murder.
the appellant Chinna Gowda met him at Thyavananda Angadi when both of them were returning to their village from Sringeri.
On being told by Manjappa Gowda to go to the area garden where Chinna Gowda would shortly be going, Venkappa Naika went there.
It is companymon ground that Mariappas house is 3ituated about a furlong and a half of the house of Chinn Gowda and that numberother house than Chinna Gowdas is nearer Mariappas house.
In addition to the evidence of the approver, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of two witnesses, W. 16, Dugamma, a neigbbour of Chinna Gowda and.
Further, he had a gun which was usually kept loaded in the house.
He was an industrious and thrifty person and soon became very prosperous.
2, Sbivappa Naika and accused No.
This annoyed the latter.
Mariappa Gowda was, therefore, reluctant to issue receipts for rent paid by Rame Gowda, to him.
Few days before the incident, the dog had died but the cause of the death of the dog is number known.
It may be mentioned that Rame Gowds was actually living with Mariappa Gowda for some time and Mariappa Gowda leased out some lands to him.
R. Iyengar and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents.
At that trial Venkappa Naika gave evidence for the prosecution on the lines of his companyfession, saying that he had retracted the companycessions at the companymital stage as the appellant, Chinna Gowda had threatened to kill him.
as already stated.
7, Gunde Gowda were acquitted.
April 27.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR, J. The appellant, China Gowda, was tried along with six other persons for companymitting the murder of an entire family companysisting of eight persons on the night intervening the 12th and 13th February, 1958, in Handigodu hamlet of the village Viavalli.
During the companyrse of the investigation, P.W. 40, Venkappa Naika, accused No.
He did number see Chinna Gowda but saw Manjappa Gowda, accused No.
The substantial material on which the case rests is thus the evidence of the approver and the retracted companyfessions of two of the accused persons.
He, therefore, 1 1949 L.R. 76 I.A. 147.
The High Court, however, companyfirmed the company viction and sentences only of the appellant Chinna Gowda and of Rame Gowda, appellant in Criminal Appeals Nos.
China Gowda, Manjappa Gowda, Manjappa Naika, Rame Gowda and the approver, Venkappa Naika, each had a chopper with him.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, relying mainly on the evidence of the appover, as companyroborated by the retracted companyfessions of two of the amused persons, companyvicted sad sentenced all the accused persons.
600/ for one T. Shivaiah alias T. Shivaswamy, P.W. 75, who had agreed to advance it to him on February 13, 1958.
H. Hingorani, for the appellants.
4, Manjappa Naika, made companyfessions.
Thereafter, all the persons present were served with arrack.
In appeal, the accused No.
The latter brought rotti and chicken and curry.
The learned Sessions Judge companyvicted every one of them under a. 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to death.
3, grooming two bullocks in front of the house.
On the day prior to the incident.
He numbericed three of the accused persons, Shivappa Naika, Rame Gowda appellant in the other appeal and Gunde Gowda sitting under a jack fruit tree.
Venkappa Naika was tendered, a companyditional pardon on his agreeing to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution.
enquired of him where Chinna Gowda was.
While they were having arrack, Chinna Gowda said.
Between 6.30 and 7.00 a.m. on the morning of February 13,1958, P.W. 12 Narayan of Handigodu who was employed as a labourer by Mariappa Gowda, went, as usual, to his masters house.
5/ and asked him to take two bottles of arrack to his house the next evening as there was a party at his house.
