The trial companyrt also pointed out that PW 5 being an illiterate woman, her varying statements as to when and how her statement was recorded by the police, cannot be the ground for doubting her testimony and this finding was affirmed by the High Court.
It is alleged that the deceased used to go to the house of accused No.4 and wife of accused No.4 used to go to the house of deceased.
Accused No.1 again inflicted the injuries with MO 1 dagger on the chest, right elbow and right thigh of the deceased.
P11 on the dead body of deceased Bhimraya on 14.06.2002 at 04.15 pm.
PW 5 mother of deceased raised alarm crying for help.
The High Court also affirmed their companyviction under Section 448 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of imprisonment imposed upon each of them.
Accused No.1 Mallikarjun inflicted an injury on the left side of waist of deceased with MO 1 dagger accused No.2 Ravi assaulted deceased with dagger MO 2 on his numbere and on left eye brow.
In her evidence, PW 5 stated that Saidapur Police came to the scene of occurrence and her statement was recorded.
Confessional statement of accused No.1 led to the recovery of dagger MO 1 hidden in the haystack of fodder in a loft of cattle shed of his house.
PW 5 Kamalamma is the mother of deceased.
As pointed out by the trial companyrt, the evidence of PW 5 as to the place of occurrence is companyroborated by the spot panchnama Ex.
It is alleged that deceased Bhimraya was having illicit affair with Bhimawwa wife of accused No.4 Balappa since 4 5 years prior to the incident and therefore, all the accused were said to be having enmity with the deceased Bhimraya.
Deceased Bhimraya came into his house, went straight to the kitchen and closed the door.
PW 17 PSI went to the scene of occurrence and companyducted inquest Ex.
The companyrts are number to judge the evidence of ruralites by the same standard and exactitude like any other witness.
After that accused No.3 Maruti dragged the deceased and knocked him to the ground.
The appellants accused No.1 Mallikarjun, accused No.2 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date 2019.08.08 163703 IST Reason Ravi and companyaccused No.3 Maruti absconding are the sons of accused No.4 Balappa.
The trial companyrt recorded its reasonings under the alternative footing that even assuming that PW 7 is number companysidered as an eye witness, his evidence supports the prosecution case to the extent of place of occurrence and the nature of injuries and the injuries sustained by deceased Bhimraya.
PWs 1 to 4 stated to be the independent eye witnesses have number supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.
All the four accused persons were threatening the deceased while chasing him saying that they would finish him off as he companytinues with illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.4/mother of accused Nos.1 to 3.
On the same day at 01.15 pm, PW 5 Kamalamma, mother of deceased lodged companyplaint before Saidapur Police Station which was reduced to writing by PW 17 PSI S.Y. Hunshikatti based on which, FIR was registered in Crime No.44/2002 at Saidapur Police Station under Sections 448, 504 and 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
PW 7 Hanmath brother of deceased had gone to the land for ploughing in the morning.
In her cross examination, PW 5 stated at one time that at about 10.00 am village Dalapathi informed the police and police came at 11.00 am and recorded her statement and obtained her left thumb impression In another version, PW 5 stated that she was at home till her husband PW 6 came home from village Kaulur and thereafter she went to the police station along with PW 6.
All the four accused started pushing the kitchen door and then deceased came outside the kitchen.
The learned senior companynsel submitted that PW 5 companyld number have been an eye witness as her evidence suffers from various discrepancies.
PW 5 stated that she pleaded with the accused for mercy and asked them number to do anything to Bhimraya.
Evidence of a witness is number to be disbelieved simply because he she appears partisan or is related to the deceased prosecution witness.
Motive is stated to be the illicit relationship of the deceased with the mother of accused Nos.1 to 3 and wife of accused No.4.
Accused No.4 Balappa is alleged to have exhorted other accused to kill deceased saying that he should number be left alive as he has been having an affair with his wife for 4 5 years and both are tarnishing the image of their family.
PW 7 Hanmanth came from field but seeing weapons in the hands of the accused persons, he did number go inside the house but he saw the incident.
The trial companyrt which had the opportunity of seeing and observing PW 5 while she was in the witness box, had observed that PW 5 has given graphic picture of the incident and that her evidence is trustworthy.
PW 7 Hanmanth brother of deceased went to the fields for ploughing in the early morning.
Accused No.1 to 3 were arrested on 15.06.2002 at about 11.00 am.
The alleged variations in the statement of PW 5, in our view, does number affect the trustworthiness of PW 5 so as to doubt her testimony.
At about 09.00 am, deceased Bhimraya went outside to attend the call of nature.
Accused No.2 Ravi caught the head whereas accused No.3 and 4 caught both the legs of the deceased and accused No.1 cut the neck of the deceased with MO 1 dagger.
PW 5 further stated that the police took her to the police station and recorded her statement in the police station.
On the morning of 14.06.2002 i.e. date of occurrence, PW 6 Mareppa father of deceased went to the Kaulur village to attend a marriage.
We have heard learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellants accused and learned companynsel appearing for the State of Karnataka and carefully companysidered the submissions and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence and materials on record.
Accused No.4 Balappa assaulted the deceased on his back with the handle of the axe MO 3 .
PWs 1 to 4 and PW 7 and others came near to the spot and on seeing them, all accused ran away from there leaving one dagger MO 2 and handle of the axe MO 3 on the spot.
Kamalamma PW 5 , mother of deceased tried to persuade the accused persons number to kill her son.
PW 12 Dr.H.R. Kumar companyducted the post mortem Ex.
The accused, however, pushed the kitchen door and Bhimraya came outside to the verandah and at that time, accused No.1 attacked the deceased at his left waist with MO 1 dagger and accused No.2 stabbed on the numbere and left eye brow with MO 2 dagger.
PW 7 brother of deceased who came back from the field for meals also witnessed the occurrence and spoke about the overt act of the accused.
The trial companyrt thus did companysider PW 7 as an eye witness.
The learned senior companynsel for the appellants submitted that the companytradictory versions of PW 5 as to how and when her statement was recorded by the police becomes relevant in the light of delay in registering FIR and delay in sending the FIR to JMFC and this only strengthens the defence plea of false implication of the accused.
Case of the prosecution is that on 14.06.2002, PW 6 Mareppa father of the deceased went to village Kaulur to attend marriage.
P6 and initial part of the investigation viz.
P7 drawn by PW 17 PSI and also the inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the Padasala itself.
Evidence of PW 5 is assailed on the ground that her evidence suffers from discrepancies and companytradictions as to how and when her statement was recorded and when PW 7 came back to the house.
In its judgment, the trial companyrt elaborately discussed about the presence of PW 5 in the house at the relevant time where the occurrence had taken place and how PW 5 is the natural witness.
preparation of the spot panchnama Ex.
As pointed out by the companyrts below, even after cross examination, the defence was number able to establish anything that can create doubt as to the evidence of PW 5.
It is alleged that accused Nos.2 to 4 caught hold the legs and hands of Bhimraya and accused No.1 inflicted chop wound on the neck of Bhimraya and Bhimraya died on the spot.
When he was returning towards his house, accused No.1 Mallikarjun, accused No.2 Ravi and accused No.4 Balappa appellants herein along with accused No.3 Maruti absconding arrived there armed with weapons in their hands.
PW 12 Doctor opined that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury to the vital organ i.e. neck.
P7 in the presence of PW 8 Chandrappa and PW 9 Mahadevappa Needgera.
PW 12 doctor further opined that the injury companyld have been caused by the knives.
Bloodstained dagger MO 2 , bloodstained handle of the axe MO 3 , bloodstained mud MO 10 and sample mud MO 11 were recovered from the scene of occurrence.
Accused No.1 again stabbed the deceased on the right elbow.
BANUMATHI, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 30.05.2008 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.124 of 2005 in and by which the High Court affirmed the companyviction of the appellants accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon each of them.
To prove the guilt of the accused before the trial companyrt, prosecution examined PWs1 to 17 and marked number of documents and also marked material objects.
