Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 319 (KAR)

N. Nataraja v. State of Karnataka

2016-03-31

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, R.B.BUDIHAL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J. 1. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has convicted accused Nos. 1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 149, Sections 143, 147, 341 r/w. Section 149 of IPC. So also by the very judgment, accused Nos. 1 and 3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC. Accused No. 4 is separately convicted for the offence punishable under Section 114 of IPC. 2. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note that this appeal was heard and allowed by another Division Bench of this Court, by the judgment and order dated 7.1.2010 acquitting the accused. The said judgment dated 7.1.2010 was questioned by PW.1 (complainant) before the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 634/2011 which came to be allowed on 27.8.2015. The Apex Court by its judgment dated 27.8.2014, set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by this Court and remitted the matter to this Court with a direction to rehear this criminal appeal on merits. Accordingly, we have heard the appeal on merits. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had animosity with the deceased Devilingaiah, inasmuch as the deceased was not permitting accused Nos. 1 and 2 to draw the electricity line through his land; on the date of incident, i.e., on 5.2.2004 at about 7.00 a.m., deceased Devilingaiah went to his areca nut garden which is situated about half-a-kilometer from his house; PW.1 (wife of the deceased) also went with a view to answer the calls of nature and to work in the areca nut garden; when PW.1 was answering calls of nature at about 7.30 a.m., all the accused came there by forming themselves into an unlawful assembly; accused Nos. 1 and 3 were armed with chopper and sickle and other accused were not armed with any weapon; all the accused by pronouncing that the deceased should not be allowed to live, came near the deceased; after seeing the accused, the deceased Devilingaiah rushed towards the garden land of Shivabasavaiah (PW.2), which is abutting the garden land of the deceased; all the accused chased the deceased and among them accused Nos. 1 and 3, who were armed with chopper and sickle assaulted the deceased on various parts of the body, consequent upon which the deceased died on the spot; at that point of time, all other accused were holding the deceased in order to prevent him from escaping. It is also alleged that accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 instigated other accused to do away with the life of the deceased; since accused Nos. 1 and 3 were armed with weapons and after seeing the ghastly crime committed by the accused in front of the complainant (PW.1), she did not dare to rescue her husband; immediately after the incident, the accused disappeared from the scene of offence; thereafter, PW.1 raised hue and cry and started running towards the village; she informed about the incident to the villagers; she also sent words to her near relatives who were living in adjoining villages; after arrival of her relatives, she went and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1 before Turuvekere Police Station at about 11.45 a.m. on the very day, i.e., on 5.2.2004, which came to be registered in Crime No. 12/2014; immediately thereafter, the police came to the spot and conducted the investigation. PW.21, the Sub-Inspector of Police completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all has examined 21 witnesses and got marked 19 Exhibits and 10 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, no witness is examined. As aforementioned, the trial Court on evaluation of the material on record, convicted all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and for other offences with which they were charged. 5. Sri A.G. Sridhar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of accused Nos. On behalf of the defence, no witness is examined. As aforementioned, the trial Court on evaluation of the material on record, convicted all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and for other offences with which they were charged. 5. Sri A.G. Sridhar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of accused Nos. 3 to 6 taking us through the material on record, submits that the evidence of sole eye witness (PW.1) is not trustworthy, inasmuch as she is not at all an eye witness to the incident in question; she came to the spot at about 9.00 a.m. though the incident took place at 7.30 a.m; PW.1 came to know about the incident only after spreading of rumour in the village and thereafter she rushed to the spot along with the villagers; lodging of complaint at 11.45 a.m. by PW.1 in the Police Station itself would clearly go to show that she came to the spot subsequent to the incident; though number of vehicles were available in the village and though 10 to 12 houses were equipped with telephone facility, neither PW.1 nor anyone in the village tried to call the police to the spot immediately after the incident; if really PW.1 was the eye witness, she could not have kept quiet without informing the police over phone; the unnatural conduct of PW.1 is evident from the fact that she was waiting for the bus in the Bus Stand, she went to Police Station in a bus and then in a scooter; since number of vehicles were available in the village and the deceased was politically influential person, there could not be any difficulty for the complainant to secure a vehicle for approaching the Police Station immediately after the incident. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused Nos. 3 to 6, accused Nos. 3 to 6 are innocent and they are falsely implicated in the crime after due deliberation with the political leaders including MLA; the time of death of the deceased might be much prior to 7.30 a.m. inasmuch as semi-digest food was present in his intestine. 6. Sri B.V. Pinto and Sri Basavaraju, learned advocates appearing on behalf of accused Nos. 3 to 6 are innocent and they are falsely implicated in the crime after due deliberation with the political leaders including MLA; the time of death of the deceased might be much prior to 7.30 a.m. inasmuch as semi-digest food was present in his intestine. 6. Sri B.V. Pinto and Sri Basavaraju, learned advocates appearing on behalf of accused Nos. 1 and 2 reiterating the very submissions mentioned supra, submit that the conduct of PW.1 was wholly unnatural; in the normal course, the wife of the deceased could not have kept quiet without alarming the police up to 11.30 or 11.45 a.m; in the normal course, the wife of the deceased would have at least touched the body of her deceased husband, but in the matter on hand, not even a stain of blood was found on the saree of the complainant. According to the learned advocates, the reasons assigned and the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are improper and incorrect. 7. Sri K.G. Keshava Murthy, learned SPP-II has argued in support of the judgment of the Court below. So also Sri M. Shashidhara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant(PW.1)-respondent No. 2 herein supported the arguments of Sri Keshavamurthy. Both of them contended that the trial Court is justified in convicting all the accused, inasmuch as the evidence of PW.1 is reliable and trustworthy; though the complainant-PW.1 was subjected to lengthy cross-examination nothing worth is elicited by the defence. They further submitted that as to why the version of solitary eye witness (PW.1) should be rejected when such solitary witness is the wife of the deceased. 8. Before proceeding further, it is beneficial to note the version of each of the witnesses in brief: "PW.1 is the sole eye witness to the incident in question. She is the wife of the deceased. She lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1. She is also the witness for spot mahazar at Ex. P2. She identified the weapons used for commission of offence. She also identified the blood stained apparels of the deceased. PW.2 is the owner of the land which is adjacent to the land of the deceased. According to the case of the prosecution, in order to save his life, the deceased ran towards the garden land of PW.2, wherein he was done to death. The dead body was lying on his land. PW.2 is the owner of the land which is adjacent to the land of the deceased. According to the case of the prosecution, in order to save his life, the deceased ran towards the garden land of PW.2, wherein he was done to death. The dead body was lying on his land. Though, PW.2 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, he has admitted about the motive for commission of offence. PWs.3 and 4 are the witnesses for inquest mahazar at Ex. P4. PWs.5, 6, 7 and 8 are the witnesses who went to the spot after the incident in question. They heard the news of murder of the deceased and went to the spot between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. on the date of the incident. PW.9 is the witness for seizure of apparels of the deceased under Ex. P5. He has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.10 is another witness for seizure mahazar at Ex. P5. PWs.11 and 12 are the witnesses for recovery of the weapons-MO. Nos. 1 and 2 at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 3 under panchanama at Ex. P8. Both of them have supported the case of the prosecution. However, the weapons (MO.NOs.1 and 2) so seized were not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. PW.13 is the Engineer who drew the sketch of scene of offence. PW.14 is the Village Accountant who has issued RTC extracts in respect of the land of PW.1 as per Ex. P10. PW.15 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body. Postmortem report is at Ex. P11. The doctor has noticed 17 injuries on the dead body. He has opined that injury No. 11 could be caused if a person is assaulted with sharp edged weapons like MO. Nos. 1 and 2. PW.16 is the witness for spot mahazar at Ex. P2. PWs.17 and 18 are the Police Constables who have participated during the investigation at different levels. PW.19 is the Investigating Officer who conducted major part of the investigation. PW.20 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who received the complaint lodged by PW.1 and registered the same in Crime No. 12/2014 on 5.2.2004 and sent FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. He has also conducted part of investigation. PW.21 is another Sub-Inspector of Police, who completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet." 9. PW.20 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who received the complaint lodged by PW.1 and registered the same in Crime No. 12/2014 on 5.2.2004 and sent FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. He has also conducted part of investigation. PW.21 is another Sub-Inspector of Police, who completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet." 9. From the aforementioned discussion, it is amply clear that case of the prosecution mainly rests on the evidence of PW.1, the sole eye witness to the incident in question. PW.1 is none other than the wife of the deceased. She has lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1. The averments made in the complaint reveal that at about 7 a.m. on 5.2.2004, herself and her husband (deceased) went to the areca nut garden from their house; after going to the garden, PW.1 went for answering the nature's call; at that point of time, all the accused who were having ill-will and enmity against the deceased in relation to dispute of the agricultural land, came to the said spot at 7.30 a.m.; among them, Accused Nos. 1 and 3 were armed with chopper and sickle; rest of the accused were empty handed; one of the accused instigated the other accused to do away with the life of the deceased; having seen the accused, the deceased started running away and entered the coconut garden of Shivabasavaiah (PW.2); all the accused however chased the deceased and Accused Nos. 1 and 3 assaulted the deceased brutally with the sickle and chopper; at that time, other accused have held and consequently prohibited the deceased to move further; Soon after the incident, the accused ran away from the scene; PW.1 immediately went to the village and informed about the incident to people in the village and subsequently lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1 at 11.45 p.m. on 5.2.2004. 10. The averments as found in Ex. P1 are fully supported by PW.1. PW.1 in her evidence before the Court has deposed that at about 7.30 a.m. on 5.2.2004 the deceased and herself went to the areca nut garden; when she went for answering the call of nature, the accused entered the garden land of the deceased; thereafter they pronounced that the deceased should be done away; after seeing the accused, the deceased tried to run and enter the land of Shivabasavaiah (PW.2); However he was waylaid by the accused; Accused Nos. 1 and 3 assaulted the deceased with chopper and sickle; Accused No. 4 pronounced that the deceased should be done to death. PW.1 has also deposed about the motive for commission of the offence. According to PW.1, there was a dispute between the deceased and Accused Nos. 1 and 2 with regard to drawing up of electricity line over the land of the deceased; deceased was not permitting Accused Nos. 1 and 2 to draw electricity line over his land; so also the deceased was not permitting Accused Nos. 1 and 2 to have the pathway inside the areca nut garden. PW.1 has also deposed about the lodging of the complaint as per Ex. P1. Though PW.1 was subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the counsel for the defence, which runs to about 17 pages, nothing worth is elicited in her cross-examination. It is brought out in her evidence that Accused No. 2 is her uncle and that there was dispute between the families of the accused and the deceased; PW.1 has admitted that the complaint was not written by her, but it was written by her relative. Further, PW.1 has deposed that the scribe of the complaint is from Thalavaranahalli Village. PW.1 also admits that the complaint came to be written only after her brother-in-law came from Bevinahalli village, meaning thereby till such time, the complaint was not prepared by her. She has testified that MO.1 was in the hand of Nataraja (Accused No. 1) and whereas the sickle - MO.2 was in the hand of Accused No. 3 - Shyamanna Gowda. She had identified the weapon used by Accused Nos. 1 and 3 for commission of the offence. However, she has vaguely deposed about the complicity of other accused by saying that they were also present on the scene of offence alongwith Accused Nos. 1 and 3 and that they also held the deceased. It is further elicited in the cross-examination by the defence that while going to the house immediately after seeing the incident, PW.1 has told about the incident to people in the village. The suggestions made by the defence that the deceased had got number of enemies are denied. It is further admitted by PW.1 that number of garden lands are situated adjoining the land in question wherein the dead body was lying. The suggestions made by the defence that the deceased had got number of enemies are denied. It is further admitted by PW.1 that number of garden lands are situated adjoining the land in question wherein the dead body was lying. Though PW.1 was subjected to lengthy cross-examination as mentioned supra, the defence was not able to elicit anything to show that PW.1 was not the eye witness to the incident. We find that the presence of PW.1 at the spot is natural inasmuch as she also went alongwith the deceased to the garden land at 7 a.m. on the date of the incident. It is not uncommon in the villages to go to the garden land on the early hours of the day. On the date of the incident i.e. on 5.2.2004 at about 7 a.m., PW.1 and the deceased went to the areca nut garden from their house. Admittedly, the daughter and mother of the deceased were in the house. In the villages, the persons who are in the house prepare breakfast or the lunch as the case may be for the family members and rest of the people would be involved in agricultural operations. Be that as it may, in addition to the same, PW.1 has deposed that she wanted to answer nature's call also and hence she went alongwith her husband at 7 a.m. On going through the evidence of PW.1 meticulously, we do not find any ground to reject or discard her evidence. On the other hand, we find that the evidence of PW.1 is wholly reliable and trustworthy. 11. Learned counsel for the defence argued that the conduct of PW.1 was unnatural inasmuch as she did not try to save the life of the deceased at the time of the incident. This contention is also answered by PW.1 in her deposition to the effect that she has feared by seeing the deadly weapons in the hands of Accused Nos. 1 and 3. Immediately after coming to the scene of offence, the accused started chasing the deceased and at that point of time, PW.1 was answering the call of nature. It is but natural that PW.1 being a rural female might have feared on seeing the deadly assault on the deceased. The entire incident has occurred within minutes. The deceased has sustained as many as 17 injuries; except one injury, all injuries are incise wounds. It is but natural that PW.1 being a rural female might have feared on seeing the deadly assault on the deceased. The entire incident has occurred within minutes. The deceased has sustained as many as 17 injuries; except one injury, all injuries are incise wounds. The doctor has opined that all such injuries can be caused by weapons Mos.1 and 2. Under the aforementioned circumstances, though PW.1 is the wife of the deceased, she could not try to save the life of the deceased. 12. The Courts will have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations; whereas some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact it depends upon individuals and individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise. It is indeed necessary to note that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain some exaggeration or embellishment. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. The Court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. If this element is satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence though not however in the absence of the same {see the Judgments in LEELA RAM vs. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (1999)9 SCC 525 and APPABHAI vs. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in AIR 1988 SC 696 }. 13. It is also by now well settled that there is no rule of law that the testimony of single witness cannot be accepted and the conviction cannot be based on such evidence, if believed. The testimony of a single witness if it is straight-forward, cogent and if believed is sufficient to prove the prosecution case, the conviction can be made on the testimony of such a single witness. There is no statutory requirement that a conviction cannot be made on the testimony of a single witness unless it is corroborated. The testimony of a single witness if it is straight-forward, cogent and if believed is sufficient to prove the prosecution case, the conviction can be made on the testimony of such a single witness. There is no statutory requirement that a conviction cannot be made on the testimony of a single witness unless it is corroborated. The Court can accept the evidence of single witness though uncorroborated and convict an accused except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself required, as a matter of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, as in the case of a child witness, an accomplice or any others of an analogous character (see the judgment in the case of VAHULA BHUSHAN vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in AIR 1989 SC 236 ). 14. In the matter on hand, PW.1 is not either a child witness or accomplice or any other analogous character. On the other hand, on careful evaluation of the evidence of PW.1, we are of the clear opinion that the testimony of PW.1 is straightforward, cogent and it is sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution inasmuch as her evidence is believable and trustworthy. 15. The contention that in a murder case, the Court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognized in Section 134 of the Evidence Act. As per Section 134 of the Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. The section enshrines the well recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted". It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, could go unpunished. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, could go unpunished. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. As mentioned supra, we find that the evidence of PW.1 is straightforward, reliable and trustworthy. 16. The case of the prosecution is further supported by the evidence of PW.2. Though PW.2 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, his evidence is helpful for the prosecution to prove the motive. He has admitted in the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor that his land is situated abutting the garden land of the deceased; That there was a dispute between the deceased and the 1st Accused in relation to drawing up of electricity line over the land of the deceased as well as with regard to the pathway. Said deposition of PW.2 is not questioned by the defence in his cross-examination. Thus in our considered opinion, the evidence of PW.2 supports the case of the prosecution atleast in respect of the motive is concerned. 17. Evidence of PW.1, the sole eye witness is fully supported by the evidence of the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination. The post-mortem report is at Ex. P11. PW.15, the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination has in detail given the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. The evidence of the doctor-PW.15 as well as the post-mortem report reveals that the deceased has sustained as many as 17 injuries and all the injuries are ante-mortem in nature. The doctor has opined that all the injuries are probably caused with sharp weapons like axe, hatchet or sickle; except injury No. 10, all injuries are grievous in nature. He has also given the opinion that except injury No. 10, all injuries shown in the post-mortem report - Ex. P11 could be caused if a person is assaulted with weapons - M.O. Nos. 1 and 2. Thus the ocular testimony of PW.1 is fully supported by the evidence of the doctor. 18. He has also given the opinion that except injury No. 10, all injuries shown in the post-mortem report - Ex. P11 could be caused if a person is assaulted with weapons - M.O. Nos. 1 and 2. Thus the ocular testimony of PW.1 is fully supported by the evidence of the doctor. 18. As mentioned supra, learned advocate for the appellants argued that the intestine was containing the semi digested food and therefore according to him, the murder must have taken place at about 1 a.m. to 2 a.m. and not at 7.30 a.m. as suggested by the prosecution. Such submission also cannot be accepted. It is emphatically deposed by the doctor - PW.15 that normally it takes 4 to 12 hours to reach food from the stomach to small intestine. Even assuming that the victim had taken his dinner at 9 to 10 p.m. on the previous day, it is but natural that semi digested food would be found in the small intestine. Admittedly, stomach did not contain semi digested food, which means the food consumed by the deceased on the previous night had already passed through stomach and was present in the small intestine in a semi digested condition. All the aforementioned aspects fully support the ocular testimony of PW.1. 19. In addition to the same, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of PWs.11 and 12, witnesses for the recovery mahazar Ex. P8. According to the case of the prosecution, Accused Nos. 1 and 3 made voluntary statement before the Police during the course of investigation and based on such voluntary statement, recovery of Mos.1 and 2 was made at the instance of Accused Nos. 1 and 3. PWs.11 and 12, the mahazar witnesses have deposed that Accused Nos. 1 and 3 led them and the Police to the garden land of one Renuka Murthy wherein they had hidden MOs.1 and 2 in a bush under certain tree. The Accused Nos. 1 and 3 took out the weapon hidden by them and produced the same before the Police in presence of the concerned. According to the mahazar witnesses, both these weapons are blood stained. The Police seized those weapons under the panchanama - Ex. P8. On evaluation of the evidence of these witnesses, we do not find any ground to reject their versions relating to recovery of the weapons. According to the mahazar witnesses, both these weapons are blood stained. The Police seized those weapons under the panchanama - Ex. P8. On evaluation of the evidence of these witnesses, we do not find any ground to reject their versions relating to recovery of the weapons. Nothing worth is elicited by the prosecution so as to discard their evidence. 20. In the matter on hand, the Investigating officers have failed to send MOs.1 and 2 for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory and consequently there is no report of the FSL to show as to whether the weapons recovered at the instance of Accused Nos. 1 and 3 were containing the human blood or not and consequently there is no material to show about the blood grouping. Even assuming that there is lapse on the part of the investigation in not sending the weapons to the FSL, the evidence of PWs.11 and 12 would reveal that the weapons were recovered at the instance of the accused. However we feel that there is no material to show as to whether those weapons contained human blood or not. Be that as it may, even ignoring the evidence of recovery under the aforementioned circumstances, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case through the evidence of PW.1 and the medical evidence beyond reasonable doubt atleast as against Accused Nos. 1 and 3. Ample material is found on record to show that Accused Nos. 1 and 3 assaulted the deceased with MOs.1 and 2 mercilessly at about 7.30 a.m. on the date of the incident in presence of PW.1 and consequent upon which, the victim died on the spot. However we find vague evidence as against Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6. In our considered opinion, the evidence on record is not sufficient to bring home guilt against Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6. The evidence of PW.1 may create suspicion as against these accused. But any amount of suspicion cannot be equated to the proof. Since it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and as the evidence, more particularly the version of PW.1 is not sufficient to bring home guilt against these accused, in our considered opinion the trial Court is not justified in convicting Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6. Since it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and as the evidence, more particularly the version of PW.1 is not sufficient to bring home guilt against these accused, in our considered opinion the trial Court is not justified in convicting Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6. As mentioned supra, it is the duty of the Court to sift the grain from the chaff. On careful evaluation of the material on record, we are of the clear conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as against Accused Nos. 1 and 3 only and the material on record is not sufficient to conclude that Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 actively participated in the crime or that they shared the common object of committing the murder of the deceased with Accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly, we pass the following order: "1. The impugned Judgment & Order of conviction and sentence dated 22.11.2005 passed by the trial Court in S.C. No. 85/2004 insofar as convicting Accused No. 2 - K. Nanjappa, Accused No. 4 - K. Lakshmaiah, Accused No. 5 - Nanjappa and Accused No. 6 - K. Shankarappa stands set aside. 2. Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. The amount of fine deposited by them shall be returned to them. 3. The impugned Judgment & Order of conviction dated 22.11.2005 insofar as convicting Accused No. 1 - N. Nataraja and Accused No. 3 - Shyamanna Gowda for the offence under Section 302 of IPC stands confirmed. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 341 of IPC. 4. The sentence imposed by the trial Court on Accused Nos. 1 and 3 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC stands confirmed. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall be taken to custody. 5. The fine amount deposited by Accused Nos. 1 and 3 shall be paid to PW.1 - Parvathamma (wife of the deceased) as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.PC." The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part accordingly.