2 to 5 do number inspire companyfidence in this companyrt to companye to a companyclusion that they are speaking truth before the companyrt.
The revenue records also prove the said fact.
1 to 3 were also companyvicted for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC for causing injuries to P.W.3, as also for causing injury to W.4.
Some alleged independent witnesses P.W.14, Mallappa and P.W.15, Rawa Sab, were also said to be present at the spot.
W.3 is the wife of the deceased.
Both P.W.2s mother and sister, P.W.4 C.W.9 were also allegedly assaulted.
The High Court has further held all the accused to be guilty of companymission of an offence under Section 307 IPC for causing injuries to P.W.2 Bhaganna.
No separate sentence, however, was awarded for offences punishable under Section 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
1, 2 and 3 assaulted him with bamboo sticks.
No First Information Report was, however, lodged by him thence.
On 16.12.1997, while ploughing his own land, he allegedly started ploughing the land of the deceased to which he objected.
It was admitted that the land is put on auction every year and for the years 1997 98, one Bhima Murari Banadi being the highest bidder in the auction, had been put in possession of the said land.
There are materials to show that it was recorded on 17th December, 1997, but he companyrected the same that it was lodged on 16th December.
The weapons said to have been recovered were number found to be blood stained.
P.W.18, the doctor of Sangli Hospital did number produce the requisition addressed by P.W.1, who referred the injured persons to the said Hospital.
The incident is said to have been witnessed by some of the independent witnesses.
She is said to be an injured witness but failed to identify the weapons of assault.
Seeing the assault Kusumavva, daughter of the deceased allegedly cried for help, whereupon, the accused persons are said to have left the sticks and hammer at the spot and ran away.
The First Information Report in relation to the said incident thereafter was lodged by P.W.2.
He allegedly borrowed the bullocks of Appellant.
P.W.17 is the Investing Officer.
W.3 was the daughter of the deceased.
It was reported at 3.45 p.m. The deceased expired at 5.15 p.m. According to him, the statement of P.W.2 was recorded in the Government hospital.
The dispute in regard to the land, if any, was between the deceased and accused No.1.
The deceased came to his rescue and in the process was assaulted by iron hammer by Appellant, whereas the accused Nos.
P.W.11 is the P.S.I., to whom P.W.5 made an oral statement that her in laws had been assaulted.
Some suggestions only were put to them.
The deceased and the accused No.1 Ningappa Bhaganna Padagaon belonged to the same village.
He has furthermore numbericed that the independent witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.
It was numbericed by the High Court that he was treated at Sangli hospital.
According to her, the quarrel had been going on for 1 hours and the people of the surrounding lands had seen the incident.
Appellant is said to have assaulted him with a hammer.
The injured, allegedly, were lying unconscious for a period of about three hours.
The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station which is situated in the town of Athani is said to be about 5 to 5 kms.
W.7 Kareppa Maruti Kallur, was the Officer attached to Athani Police Station.
Why numberstatement was recorded even after the police officer came to the spot, has number been disclosed.
14 and 15, who were independent witnesses, did number support the case of the prosecution.
According to her, the police came at 7.00 a.m. on the next day and companyducted a spot Mahazar.
Even he was number sure when the First Information Report was lodged.
Presumably they came to the companyrt together.
The presence of the 5th person and use of iron bar in causing injury, which was recorded by the doctor, the learned Judge has opined, was number explained by the prosecution.
The deceased is alleged to have given some land to him, who was claiming more.
Even the requisition had number been proved.
He did number say who were the assailants.
On an appeal preferred by the State of Karnakata, the High Court set aside the said judgment and order, companyvicting the appellant herein for companymission of an offence under Section 302 IPC.
She also stated that she had boarded a jeep from the outskirts of the village, wherefor she had to go on foot to the said place.
P.W.5, allegedly, boarded a jeep, which was presumably being run as a taxi, went to the police station and informed about the incident to P.W.11 Nagaraj, a PSI attached to the said police station.
He was known to the police as he had been involved in criminal cases from 1990.
P.W.11 came to the spot and shifted all the injured persons to the Government hospital.
P.7 ROR fortifies the view taken by this companyrt.
So this companyrt is of companysidered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges framed against the accused.
The learned Trial Judge on companyent reasons opined that the prosecution had number been able to prove its case.
P.W.2 his son, Bhaganna, P.W.3 his wife, Tangawwa and P.W.4 his daughter, Mayavva, were said to be present at that place.
She accepted that lathis and hammers are available in all the agricultural families.
Appellant herein along with three others was accused of companymission of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for short, IPC .
It is of some interest to numbere that she had accepted that the police had tutored her in the morning of the day on which she deposed in the Court.
Who had taken them to the hospital had also number been disclosed.
They were acquitted by the learned Trial Judge.
The accused Nos.
14 and 15, although arrived at the spot, did number support the prosecution case, whereas according to P.Ws.
If the accused No.1 was number in possession of the lands in question, according to the learned Trial Judge, it would give rise to a doubt as to whether the genesis of the occurrence was companyrect.
She stated that she had been watching and companynting as to how many beatings were made by each of the accused, which is difficult to accept.
2 to 5, numberody had companye and they did number meet anybody.
They were number companyfronted with their earlier statement.
P.W.2 and other witnesses admitted that there were 30 to 40 houses sounding the agricultural land where the incident allegedly occurred.
He accepted that the land in question did number belong to the deceased and according to him possession of the land was with the Government.
Before the learned Trial Court, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses.
Who had brought the injured in the jeep, in which they were shifted, had number been disclosed.
Accused No.1 had numberbullocks of his own.
W.2 was, allegedly, the first person to be assaulted by the accused No.1.
Ws.3 and 4 were also said to have been assaulted by the other accused with bamboo sticks.
He accepted habitation about 30 to 40 yards away from the place.
According to the prosecution, all the accused persons were found present in the village in a temple chit chatting, wherefrom they were arrested.
She, although, supported her case in regard to the assault but admitted that her husband had died at the Government hospital whereafter the police took them to Sangli hospital.
She was examined on the same day when her mother was examined.
The accused No.1, admittedly, did number own any bullocks to plough his land.
11 and 12, who examined themselves as P.W.14 and P.W.15, came at the spot and on seeing them the accused persons went away in a bullock cart.
There exists a dispute as to whether the land where allegedly the occurrence took place belonged to the deceased.
Murugappa, the deceased, succumbed to his injuries at about 5.15 p.m on the same day.
The Investigating Officer, however, did number find any house, leading to a companyment from the learned Trial Judge that he might number have visited the place of occurrence at all.
The deceased was declared dead at the Government hospital, whereas P.W.2 and other injured witnesses were treated at Sangli Hospital.
X rays of the injured were taken by some other radiologist, who had number been examined.
It is, therefore, difficult to accept that when her mother was tutored by the police, she was number.
They were declared hostile.
The witness stated that the police came to the spot after three hours.
The case of the prosecution found in Ex.
The doctor, who had prepared the injury report of P.W.2, was number a radiologist.
Admittedly, there were several agriculturists who had been cultivating their own lands.
There were many houses around the land in question.
The incidence, allegedly, took place at about 3.00 p.m. A quarrel ensued, whereupon all the four accused are said to have assaulted the deceased.
There is numberhing to show that there has been a requisition to send the injured for further treatment to the Sangli hospital.
She had, allegedly, paid a sum of Rs.3/ by way of fare.
