JUDGMENT : 1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- As, there were several complaints lodged by the deceased against the accused, there was enmity between the accused and the deceased. Such enmity between the two groups was like a double edged weapon. In this background, on 14.07.2008, when the deceased Paramesha was returning to his house, after attending Ranganatha Swamy Jathra, the accused tried to attack the deceased and pelted stones at his motorcycle, but he escaped from the same and returned to his house. After informing the said incident to his wife, the deceased Paramesha and PW.14 Doddaiah were going to intimate the same to the police. At about 8.45 p.m, all the accused Nos. 1 to 11 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like dragger (Baku) and knife (choori), with an intention to eliminate the deceased Paramesh, who belonged to Scheduled Caste, picked up a quarrel with him and Accused No.1 Sridharaswamy @ Swamy stabbed Paramesh with dragger on the left side of his chest and Accused No.2 Siddaiah stabbed him with knife on his right chest and ribs and thereby committed the murder of deceased Paramesh. Based on the complaint lodged by Smt. Bhuvaneshwari (PW.1), the wife of the deceased as per Ex.P.2, a case came to be registered against all the 11 accused and after completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against them for the offences punishable under Sections-143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 109, 302 read with 149 IPC and Section-3 (i) (x), 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The accused pleaded not guilty and they came to be tried for the aforesaid offences. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses, marked 11 documents as at Ex.P.1 to P.11 along with 9 material objects. By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned judge of the Trial Court convicted only the accused 1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Sections-144, 148, 324, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned judge of the Trial Court convicted only the accused 1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Sections-144, 148, 324, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section-144, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half years for an offence under Section-148, rigorous imprisonment for two years for an offence under Section-324, imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each for an offence punishable under Section-302 of IPC, in default, to undergo imprisonment for 2 years. Further, Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each for an offence punishable under Section-3 (ii) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and all the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The fine amount, if paid, was ordered to be paid to the wife of deceased namely, Smt. Bhuvaneshwari (PW.1). However, having held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused Nos. 3 to 11, the Trial Court acquitted them for all the offences leveled against them, on the ground that no specific overt act were attributed to accused Nos. 3 to 11. It is this judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge in this appeal by the accused Nos. 1 & 2. 3. Shri. B.A. Ramesh Babu, learned Advocate appearing for the accused-appellants firstly contended that though the incident did occur at 8.30 p.m on 14.07.2008, complaint was lodged at 3.00 a.m on 15.07.2008 and hence, there is an inordinate delay in lodging complaint. Secondly he contended that eyewitnesses namely, PWs. 1, 2, 13 & 14 are close relatives of the deceased and they being the persons belonging to the same community of the deceased, they are all interested witnesses and that they visited the spot after hearing about the death of the deceased and hence, they cannot be treated as eyewitnesses to the incident. Due to previous enmity between the deceased and the accused, the accused were falsely implicated in the crime. Due to previous enmity between the deceased and the accused, the accused were falsely implicated in the crime. Thirdly, he contended that the deceased Paramesha was notorious person and a rowdy sheeter and had several enemies in the locality and hence, some other people had killed him and thrown his dead body in the scene of occurrence. Fourthly he contended that PWs. 8 & 15 who are witnesses for recovery mahazar Ex.P.5, for recovery of the alleged weapons, have turned hostile and hence, the prosecution has not established the recovery of the weapons. Sixthly he contended that the accused persons have inflicted only one blow on the deceased, without having knowledge that such assault would definitely cause death of the deceased and hence, if this Court were to come to the conclusion that the accused are guilty and uphold the judgment of the Trial Court, a lenient view may be taken and the offence committed by the accused may be reduced from Section-302 to 304-I. Lastly he contended that even though there was material whatsoever against the accused for the offence punishable under Section- 3(ii) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the learned judge of the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the aforesaid offence. 4. On the other hand, Smt. B.G. Namitha Mahesh, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that merely because the eyewitnesses PWs. 1, 2, 13 & 14 are relatives and friends of the deceased, their evidence cannot be brushed aside on the said ground, as they categorically deposed the incident, as it happened. She further submits that the trial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record in a proper perspective, rightly convicted the accused for the offences-charges leveled against them and the same does not calls for interference from this Court and hence, she prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsels and in view of the above mentioned rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration is as follows: (a). Whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused-appellants for the offence punishable under Section-302 of IPC. (b) Whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused-appellants for the offences punishable under Sections-3(ii) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ? 6. Whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused-appellants for the offence punishable under Section-302 of IPC. (b) Whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused-appellants for the offences punishable under Sections-3(ii) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ? 6. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides and examined the material on record. Amongst 18 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PWs. 1, 2, 13 & 14 are the eyewitnesses. PW.4 is the person who took the accused Nos. 1 & 2 to the hospital on his motorcycle for treatment. PW.5 is the person who informed about the incident to police through phone, PW.6 is the person who had seen the dead body of the deceased and the injuries over the dead body, PW.7 is the witness for inquest mahazar Ex.P.4, PWs. 8 & 15 are the witnesses for recovery mahzar Ex.P.5 under which weapons MOs. 5 & 6 were recovered, but they turned hostile to the prosecution. PW.9 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and submitted postmortem report and his opinion as per Ex.P.6 & 7 respectively. PW.10 is the Engineer who has prepared sketch pertains to scene of occurrence. PW.11 is the police constable has stated in his presence the Investigation Officer prepared the recovery mahazar as per Ex.P.5. PW.12 is the Police Sub-Inspector who received the complaint as per Ex.P.2 from PW.1 and registered FIR as per Ex.P.9. PW.16 is the Police constable who carried FIR to the jurisdictional Court and PWs. 17 & 18 are the investigation officers. 7. The case of the prosecution entirely rests on the eyewitness’s statement, in the form of PWs.1, 2, 13 & 14 and medical evidence in the form of PW.9 and postmortem report Ex.P.6 & 7. On an appreciation of the documentary evidence, the learned Judge of the trial Court, having found that the accused Nos. 1 & 2 are guilty of the charges leveled against them had convicted and sentenced them, as stated supra. 8. On a careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is seen that there was enmity between the deceased and the accused, as the deceased, on earlier occasion, lodged several complaints against the accused persons which had ended in acquittal. 8. On a careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is seen that there was enmity between the deceased and the accused, as the deceased, on earlier occasion, lodged several complaints against the accused persons which had ended in acquittal. In the background of such previous enmity, the present incident had occurred on 14.07.2008. Hence, the prosecution has established the motive beyond the murder. 9. Insofar as the first contention of the learned counsel as regards delay in lodging the complaint is concerned, the material on record reveals that the incident did occur at 8.45 p.m. on 14.07.2008 in Angalagunte Village and PW.1, the wife of the deceased lodged her complaint at 3.00 a.m. on 15.07.2008. Admittedly, the Police Station is located 8 k.m. away from the village and the complainant being a lady who was under severe shock on account of death of her husband lodged complaint six hours after the incident and hence, no fault could be found with such a short delay in lodging the complaint. Hence, the first contention of the learned counsel cannot be sustained. 10. PW.1 Smt. Bhuvaneshwari who is none other than the wife of the deceased and the complainant has deposed that immediately after return from Jathra at 8.00 p.m. on the date of incident, the deceased Parameshwara informed her that while he was returning to the house, the accused tried to assault him near Agalgunte Gate and he escaped from the hands of the accused who pelted stones at his motor cycle. Then her husband along with his friend Doddaiah (PW. 14) stating that they would intimate about the incident to the Police. As her husband did not return home for a while, herself, PW.2 and 13 went behind Anjaneya Temple in search of her husband. At that time she noticed A1 and A2 both stabbing her husband with dagger and knife near the house of Panchaksharaiah and other accused kicking him with legs. PW2 and 5 who had accompanied her made an attempt to catch the accused persons, but they ran away from the spot. She further deposed that on an earlier occasion the deceased opposed sale of arrack in the village and lodged a complaint against the accused, whereby there was an enmity between the deceased and the accused. PW2 and 5 who had accompanied her made an attempt to catch the accused persons, but they ran away from the spot. She further deposed that on an earlier occasion the deceased opposed sale of arrack in the village and lodged a complaint against the accused, whereby there was an enmity between the deceased and the accused. Due to such enmity, her husband was murdered by the accused and hence she lodged a complaint before the police as per Ex.P.2. Subsequently she identified the weapons used by the accused for committing the murder of her husband. Despite incisive cross-examination, nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the evidence of this witness to disbelieve her evidence. 11. PW.14 is a friend of deceased who is another important witness to the incident, wherein he himself had accompanied the deceased to inform the police about the threat given by the accused prior to the incident. He has deposed in his evidence that since the women and children in the village had started consuming arrack, the deceased had lodged a complaint against the seller of arrack and since then, the accused had developed an enmity against the deceased. On the date of the incident, as requested by the deceased, he accompanied him to go to Alagunte Gate to intimate the police about the attempt of assault made by the accused. When they reached near Anjaneya Temple, accused 1 and 2 who were standing there suddenly assaulted the deceased with dagger and knife on the left and right chest of the deceased. At that time, he tried to catch hold of accused no.2 and in that process, he also fell into the ditch. Apprehending that they would kill him, he escaped from the spot. 12. PW.2 and 13 who are staying 100 meters away from the scene of offence have deposed that as requested by PW.1, they accompanied her in search of husband of PW.1, Paramesha and when they had gone to the place of incident, they saw the accused Nos. 1 and 2 stabbing the deceased with dagger and knife and remaining accused kicking the deceased and subsequently Paramesha died. All these four eyewitnesses, in unequivocal terms deposed about the manner in which the accused assaulted the deceased as it happened. Further, as per these witnesses, there was electric light emanating at the place where the incident took place. 1 and 2 stabbing the deceased with dagger and knife and remaining accused kicking the deceased and subsequently Paramesha died. All these four eyewitnesses, in unequivocal terms deposed about the manner in which the accused assaulted the deceased as it happened. Further, as per these witnesses, there was electric light emanating at the place where the incident took place. No doubt while appreciating the evidence of interested/relative witnesses, their depositions have to be scrutinized with great caution. In the case on hand, all these witnesses who were present at the scene of occurrence narrated the incident as it happened. Their evidence are worthy of credence and remained unshaken by the defence inasmuch as nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their evidence. Merely because the deceased was a rowdy sheeter, the law would not permit the accused to take law into their hands and commit murder of the deceased. Further, though PW. 8 and 15 the panch witnesses for recovery mahazar Ex.P.5 turned hostile, the police personnel have categorically stated about the recovery of the weapons used in the incident, at the instance of accused. Hence, the second, third and fourth contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant have no legs to stand and the same are hereby rejected. 13. Dr. Y.N. Nagarajaiah (PW.9) who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased submitted PM Report as well as opinion as per Ex.P. 6 and 7 respectively. As could be seen from the postmortem report Ex.P.6, the deceased sustained following injuries: 1. An incised wound with sharp margins and gaping measuring 3.5 cms length, 1.5 cm width seen over night upper chest. When probe is passed and went up to depth of 14 cms suggesting this wound as stab injury. 2. An incised wound with sharp gapping margin measuring 6.0 cm x 2.00 cm seen over front of chest in midline (over body of sternum). When probe is inserted and passed obliquely into left chest cavity for a depth of 13 cm suggesting stab injury. 3. An incised wound with smooth gaping margin measuring 4.5 x 2.5 cm seen over left side4 of abdomen with protruded small bound loops. When probe is inserted and extended abdominal cavity suggesting stab injury. The doctor has deposed regarding the corresponding injuries seen by him over the dead body of the deceased after dissection. 3. An incised wound with smooth gaping margin measuring 4.5 x 2.5 cm seen over left side4 of abdomen with protruded small bound loops. When probe is inserted and extended abdominal cavity suggesting stab injury. The doctor has deposed regarding the corresponding injuries seen by him over the dead body of the deceased after dissection. He has seen tearing of both the lungs and he has opined that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased ante-mortem and that the death was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of injury to vital organs. Further, as requested by the Investigating Officer, he has submitted his opinion as per Ex.P.7, opining that the injuries found on the deceased could be caused by using the weapons (M.Os. 5 and 6). He categorically denied the suggestions made by the defence that if a person falls on iron object, those injuries could be caused, stating that all the three injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report cannot occur by incidental falling. As such, the evidence of the Doctor clearly establishes that the death of the deceased Paramesha was due to stab injuries sustained by him namely, hemorrhage and shock as a result of injury to vital organs. 14. The above narrated depositions of eyewitnesses (PWs. 1, 2, 13 and 14) coupled with the medical evidence would un-erringly point out the finger towards the guilt of the accused and show that the death of the deceased Paramesha was on account of injuries inflicted by accused Nos. 1 and 2. 15. Thus it takes us to next question as to whether the act committed by the accused-appellants would fall under exception -1 of Section 300, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. On a careful evaluation of the material on record it is seen that both the accused have implicated only a single blow, without the knowledge that such injuries would definitely cause the death of the deceased, without any premeditation. Therefore, we find that there is some substance in the last argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would be just and appropriate to reduce the offence committed by the accused from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 part – I of IPC. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would be just and appropriate to reduce the offence committed by the accused from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 part – I of IPC. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered by holding that the Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused-appellants for the offence punishable under Section-302 of IPC. Consequently, the offence committed by the accused-appellants is reduced from 302 of IPC to 304 Part-I of IPC. 16. Before adverting the next point for consideration, it is just and necessary to extract (v) of Section-3 of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which reads as under: “(v) by words either written or spoken or by any other means disrespects any late person held in high esteem by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes”. 17. On perusal of the records, there is no doubt that the deceased belonged to scheduled cast community. Though the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(i) (x) and 3(2) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on a careful scrutiny of the material on record i.e., the averments made in the complaint (Ex.P. 2) and depositions of PW.1, 2, 13 and 14, there is no whisper in their evidence about accused committing offences under the above provisions and the ingredients of the above provisions have not been established by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence. In fact, the learned Judge of the Trial Court, having found that there is no evidence available to prove the charges levelled against the accused under Section 3(i) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, rightly acquitted the accused – appellants for those offences. But despite there being no evidence whatsoever available on record to prove the ingredients of the Section 3 (ii) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the learned Judge of the Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused-appellants herein for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. But despite there being no evidence whatsoever available on record to prove the ingredients of the Section 3 (ii) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the learned Judge of the Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused-appellants herein for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered by holding that the Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Section- 3(ii) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Consequently, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment requires to be set aside insofar as it relates to convicting the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2012 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge and Special Court for Trial of Cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in Special Case No. 278 of 2008, is set aside insofar as it relates to convicting the accused appellants for the offences punishable under Section 3 (ii) and (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused appellants are acquitted for the said offences. In modification of the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2012 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge and Special Court for Trial of Cases in Special Case No. 278 of 2008, the accused appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 (i) of IPC and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years, instead of life imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- each. However, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court in respect of other offences i.e., Section 144, 148, 324 read with 149 of IPC shall remain unaltered. It is needless to observe that the accused-appellants are entitled to have the benefit of set off, as contemplated under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., for the period spent by them during the trial.