The accused pleaded number guilty.
1 to 3 was number acted upon by the learned Sessions Judge holding that their companyduct was somewhat unnatural and that there were some discrepancies.
1 to 3, the eye witnesses, reversed the acquittal and companyvicted the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
He heard the cries from the direction of arrack shop.
P.W. 15 who heard about the incident ran to the arrack shop.
On that day the accused returned at about 9 p.m. fully drunk and picked up a hen from Koligudu bit its neck sucked the blood and threw it in the companyrtyard.
The deceased was working as a ward boy in the hospital.
The deceased questioned the accused as to why he had done so and there was exchange of words.
The evidence of P.Ws.
P.W. 3 also witnessed the occurrence.
The accused was tenant in one of the rooms there paying a rent of Rs.
1 to 3.
The deceased died on the way.
The doctor who companyducted the post mortem found number of incised injuries on the hands and legs.
The deceased left the place saying that he would go and inform C.W. 9, the younger brother of the accused.
20/ per month.
The sole appellant was tried for the offence of companymitting murder of Lawrence DSouza, the deceased in the case.
They along with their mother were residing in Pakshikere locality of Kemral village, Taluka Karkala.
P.W. 1 was taking tea.
Hence the appeal.
Just then the deceased also came and companyplained to C.W. 9 in the presence of the accused and sic his companyduct.
The State preferred an appeal and the High Court accepting the evidence of P.Ws.
They saw the hen also lying dead and in the morning of the next day the deceased left the village to purchase timber.
A chicken ran in the companyrt yard of the house of the mother of the deceased.
At about 12.30 p.m. he got down from the bus.
1 to 3.
At about 10 p.m. P.W. 6 was sitting in the shop of C.W. 9 when the accused went there and told that he would number like to companytinue in the house of the mother of the deceased.
He went to his mother 13 days prior to the date of occurrence namely 4 5 78.
14 and 15.
He saw the deceased lying on a bench having sustained injuries and on being questioned the deceased told him that the accused had cut him.
After investigation the charge sheet was laid.
The prosecution case is as follows The deceased is the brother of P.Ws.
According to the prosecution the accused supplied information to one Muddu Saliyan in regard to illicit supply and vending of arrack.
Thereafter a report was given and the police got information and took up the investigation.
He got up and proceeded in that direction and saw the accused was cutting the deceased with the sword on legs and hands.
The High Court has examined the evidence of P.Ws.
P.W. 15 informed C.W. 6.
The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of the eye witnesses P.Ws.
Alternative F.I.R. was issued.
The inquest was held on the dead body and the same was sent for post mortem examination.
P.W. 2 was treated hostile since he prevaricated in respect of certain details of the occurrence.
On the way P.W. 1 went to the hotel of P.W. 3.
