On the crucial day, the deceased objected for the cart being taken through his fields especially for the reason that there was crop on the land.
Crlmp 4951/2002, were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for companymitting the murder of Hanamant Basappa Byali at about 4.30 p.m. on 4.9.1994 at Sankanal village, Bijapur district.
2 and 3 took another bullock cart from the village and carried the deceased in that cart and left the cart at the place opposite to the house of PW 6.
The trial Court discussed the question of motive and held that the motive was number established.
The other accused were companyvicted under Section 324 P.C. Accused Buddappa Sabanna was companyvicted, in addition, for an offence under Section 323 I.P.C. As regards the Special leave petition preferred by the three accused other than the appellant , learned companynsel for the petitioners has stated at the outset that the three accused companyvicted under Section 324 and Section 323 have already served the period of imprisonment and the companynsel made it clear that he is number pressing the special leave petition.
The accused were also charged under Section 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. After trial the accused were acquitted by the Sessions Judge.
2004 Supp 4 SCR 880 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by The first accused in the Sessions Case No.
The quarrel went on for some time with abuses hurled against each other.
The other accused also inflicted injuries with clubs resulting in fracture of the bones of left forearm and a lacerated wound on the outer aspect of the thigh.
After some time accused Nos.
PW 1 lodged the companyplaint to the police at about 7.45 p.m. The inquest and investigation followed, the details of which it is number necessary to state.
Hence, the special leave petition is dismissed as number pressed.
The postmortem examination was done on the next day morning by PW 3 who is the Medical Officer attached to the Government hospital, Bagewadi.
Coming to the appeal filed by the appellant, the only point which is seriously urged before us is in regard to the nature of offence, that is to say, whether the appellant is liable to be companyvicted under Section 302 or for a lesser offence under Section 304 I.P.C. Nevertheless, the broad facts need to be set out briefly.
On this an altercation ensued.
According to the medical evidence, it was a simple injury.
At that time PW 12 also came to the spot.
An injury was also inflicted on PW 1 by the appellant on his left arm.
The accused were also charged for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for causing hurt to the wife of the deceased and to the brother of the deceased, who is an informant in the case.
On an appeal filed by the State, the High Court reversed the verdict of acquittal and companyvicted the appellant herein under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
It appears from the evidence on record that the way through the fields of the deceased is a short cut to reach the lands of the accused and the appellant had been driving his bullock cart through this path since companysiderable time.
The appellant was asking him to get up and to smoke a beedi.
PW 1 thereafter run away from the place, PW 2, an agricultural labourer was observing the incident from some distance.
The trouble started when the appellant and the other accused tried to take their bullock card through the fields of the deceased so as to reach the fields of the first accused.
Then he alone went to the scene of occurrence and found the appellant standing near the deceased Hanamant who was on the ground with injuries.
The prosecution case is that the deceased Hanamant Basappa Byali was doing agricultural operations in his fields close to the village along with PW 1 and PW 2, PW 1 being the brother of the deceased.
After the attack ended and the deceased fell down, PW 4 the wife of the deceased came to the spot and when she protested she was kicked by the accused Buddappa Sabanna.
The blood stained axe was recovered from the appellant pursuant to the disclosure made by him.
The appellant together with three other accused, who are petitioners in SLP Crl.
Suddenly the appellant took the axe kept on the cart and hit the deceased Hanamant on the occipital region which resulted in depressed fracture of the skull bone.
The victim was killed in his fields.
