JUDGMENT P. Krishna Bhat, J. - Accused No.5 against whom the case was split up before the Court below, having suffered an order of conviction for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of the India Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), in S.C.No.67/2009 before the Fast Track Court-II, Bhalki, has come up with this appeal before this Court. 2. Accused No.5, who will herein after be referred to as the appellant, is the son of accused No.1 - Umakanth and accused No.2 - Parvathibai @ Padminibai. The two other accused in the case were accused No.3 - Gurunath and accused No4 - Ramling are his brothers. Since the appellant had remained absconding, accused Nos.1 to 4 were tried separately before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bidar in S.C.No.56/2000 and by a judgment dated 16.09.2004 they were all convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and they were sentenced for the said offences accordingly. They preferred an appeal before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1468/2004 and by judgment dated 22.10.2007, the appeal came to be dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bidar as against them was confirmed. Later, on 29.03.2009, the appellant was arrested and he was remanded and thereafter a charge sheet was filed against him and he faced trial before the learned Fast Track Court-II, Bhalki in S.C.No.67/2009 which ended in his conviction as noted above. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that deceased Beerappa was the owner of about 16 acres of land in Survey No.388 of Mehkar village of Bhalki taluka and he was cultivating the same along with his children. Accused Nos.1 to 4 and the present appellant were objecting to the cultivation of the said land by the deceased Beerappa and they were also quarreling with him. There was a civil litigation also between both the parties in regard to the said land. Accused Nos.1 to 4 and the present appellant were objecting to the cultivation of the said land by the deceased Beerappa and they were also quarreling with him. There was a civil litigation also between both the parties in regard to the said land. On 18.12.1999, at about 2.00 p.m., when deceased Beerappa, his son Prabhakar (deceased), his other children PW.2 - Tatyrao, PW.7 - Rangarao and other members of the family were working in the field in Survey No.388 removing weed etc., accused No.1 to 4 and the appellant went there forming themselves into an unlawful assembly being armed with Jambia, sickle, axe and kamakatti, and started assaulting Beerappa with the same and when deceased Prabhakar went to his rescue they assaulted him as well with deadly weapons and further when PW.7 - Rangarao went to their rescue, accused assaulted him as well causing him serious injuries, with the result, both Beerappa and Prabhakar died instantaneously in the spot itself and PW.7 was shifted to the hospital with the injuries and he survived. 4. The present appellant was represented by a learned counsel before the Trial Court which after hearing both sides, framed charges against him for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. The appellant having denied the charges, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 23 and Exs.P1 to P32 were marked. MOs.1 to 16 were also marked. Prosecution closed its side and thereafter the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. drawing his attention to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant did not examine any witnesses on his behalf. The Trial Court after hearing has passed the judgment impugned herein convicting the appellant and sentencing him for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. 5. Before the Trial Court initially defence has pleaded alibi and further contended that he was innocent and he was falsely implicated in the case. The Trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence placed before it has believed the eyewitnesses PWs.2 and 7 (who is an injured witness) and also other circumstances placed before the Court and has disbelieved alibi pleaded as not supported by evidence and entered the judgment of conviction against the appellant herein. 6. The Trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence placed before it has believed the eyewitnesses PWs.2 and 7 (who is an injured witness) and also other circumstances placed before the Court and has disbelieved alibi pleaded as not supported by evidence and entered the judgment of conviction against the appellant herein. 6. In this appeal identity of the dead bodies of Beerappa and Prabhakar have not been disputed on behalf of the appellant before us. The evidence of PWs.2 and 7 who are two children of deceased Beerappa and brothers of Prabhakar leaves us in no doubt the deceased were none other than Beerappa and Prabhakar. Similarly, homicidal nature of death of Beerappa and Prabhakar cannot be disputed in the face of overwhelming material available in the records of this case. Not only PWs.2 and 7 have spoken about the same but there is also the evidence of Medical Officer PW.13 - Dr.Devindra S/o Kashappa Mainhalle who has conducted postmortem examination over their dead bodies. 7. Pw.13 has conducted postmortem on the dead body of Beerappa on 19.12.1999 between 10.15 a.m. and 12.15 p.m. He has noted the following external injuries on the dead body of Beerappa: 1. "Clean cut edged oblique injury over the lefty temparo-parietal region of head measuring about 4 cm x 1 cm, it was a bony deep injury and the underlying temporal bone was fractured and its length was 3 cm. The brain was exposed. 2. Clean cut edged oblique over the base of left side neck measuring 3 cm x cm depth was cm, cutting underlying muscles vessels and nerves. 3. Clean cut edged vertical injury over the center of fore head measuring 2 cm x 1 cm, bony deep. 4. Oblique clean cut edged injury over outer aspect of right shoulder measuring 6 cm x 5 cm bony deep causing fracture of underlying humorous bone measuring 4 cm x 1 cm. 5. Transverse clean cut edged injury over left side of abdomen it was situated 4 cm above the iliac crest measuring 5 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. Peritoneum deep. On dissection he found the following internal injuries: " The surrounding and underlying tissues around all the above injuries were congested and contains extravasated blood and blood clot. On dissection of the body he noticed all the internal organs were pale and shrunken. Peritoneum deep. On dissection he found the following internal injuries: " The surrounding and underlying tissues around all the above injuries were congested and contains extravasated blood and blood clot. On dissection of the body he noticed all the internal organs were pale and shrunken. The stomach contained 500 M.L. of semidigested rice, bread particles and water. While mentioning the external injuries he described the corresponding internal injuries in the manner noted supra. All the above injuries were antemortem in nature. According to him the cause of death was coma due to shock as a result of multiple injuries over the body. The time since death was between 18 to 24 hours. He has issued the P.M. report which is marked now as Ex.P.9 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.9 (a). He has rendered an opinion that, the above injuries could be caused by M.O.1 to M.O.4 shown to him and the above injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course to cause the death of the injured." 8. Similarly, PW.13 has conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased Prabhakar on the same day between 12.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. and he found the following external injuries: 1. "Transverse clean-cut injury over right side lower aspect of the back measuring 3 cm x 2 cm x 5 cm blood and blood clot were present. 2. Transverse clean cut injury over right scapula measuring 6 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm causing fracture of the underlying scapula Bobbie measuring 4 cm x cm. 3. Oblique clean cut injury over 5 cm above injury No.3 measuring 4 x 1 cm x cm. Reddish brown blood clot present. 4. Transverse clean-cut injury over 2 cm above injury no.3 measuring 5 cm x 1 cm x cm. Reddish brown blood clot present. 5. A vertical clean cut injury over posterior aspect of head measuring 6 x 2 cm fracturing underlying occipital bone measuring 4 cm x cm inturn lacerating the underlying brain measuring 2 cm x 1 cm, reddish brown blood clot present. 6. A vertical clean cut injury over the left scapula measuring 5 cm x 3 cm bony deep, fracturing the underlying scapula measuring 3 cm x cm reddish brown blood clot present. 7. 6. A vertical clean cut injury over the left scapula measuring 5 cm x 3 cm bony deep, fracturing the underlying scapula measuring 3 cm x cm reddish brown blood clot present. 7. A transverse clean cut injury over right side upper aspect of the chest measuring 4 cm x 1 cm, fracturing the underlying two ribs measuring 1 cm in length. Reddish brown blood clot present. 8. Transverse clean-cut injury over left ear measuring 2 x cm reddish brown blood clot present. 9. Transverse clean cut injury over right side middle of the neck, measuring 3 cm x 1 cm x 4 cm cutting the underlying nerves, vessels, and muscles reddish brown blood clot present. 10. An oblique clean-cut injury over right side head measuring 6 x cm bony deep reddish brown blood clot present. 11. A vertical clean-cut injury over center of head measuring 6 x 1 cm bony deep reddish brown blood clot present. 12. An irregular bruise over left temple measuring 8 x 6 cm reddish brown in colour. 13. An oblique clean cut injury over right dorsum of hand measuring 4 x cm bony deep reddish brown blood clot present. 14. An oblique clean cut injury over right shoulder measuring 10 x 4 cm causing fracture of head of humorous bone measuring 3 x 1 cm reddish brown blood clot present. 15. An oblique clean cut injury over dorsal aspect of right middle fore arm measuring 5 x 1 x cm reddish brown blood clot present. 16. An oblique clean cut injury over lateral aspect of middle of left leg measuring 4 x 1 x 1 cm reddish brown blood clot present. "In all the above injuries the underlying and surrounding tissue were congested. All the above injuries were antemortem in nature. On dissection of the body all the internal organs were pale and shrunken. Stomach contains 500 m.l. of semi-digested rice bread particles and water. The above injuries could be caused from M.O.1 to M.O.4. He is of the opinion that the cause of death was coma due to shock as a result of multiple injuries over the body. The time since death is between 18 to 24 hours prior to P.M. Examination, he has issued P.M. report and it is marked as Ex.P.10 and the signature is at Ex.P.10 (a). He is of the opinion that the cause of death was coma due to shock as a result of multiple injuries over the body. The time since death is between 18 to 24 hours prior to P.M. Examination, he has issued P.M. report and it is marked as Ex.P.10 and the signature is at Ex.P.10 (a). Since external injuries in both the P.M. cases were more, he has mentioned them in detail in a separate page annexed to Ex.P.10. As far as Ex.P.9 is concerned it is written separately that the external injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course to cause the death of Prabhakar." 9. There is no serious cross-examination to PW.13 on this aspect. In any event, the nature and large number of injuries seen on the dead bodies of Beerappa and Prabhakar completely rule out they having suffered any injury accidentally or they having inflicted such injuries on themselves. The evidence clearly shows that they had died a homicidal death. 10. In the earliest version of the incident namely the complaint lodged by PW.2, there is a reference to the land dispute between the parties. Various witnesses examined before the Trial Court have also spoken about the land dispute between the parties. The bone of contention between the parties is regarding ownership and enjoyment of the land in Survey Nos.388 and 389. The records annexed to this case pertaining to trial against accused Nos.1 to 4 who are the parents and brothers of present appellant in S.C.No.56/2000 show that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.182/1998 dated 11.03.1999 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhalki was exhibited in the said case as Exs.P27 and P28. However, the said judgment and decree have not been specifically exhibited during the trial in this case. The certified copy of the said judgment and decree shows that the suit was filed by deceased Beerappa through PW.2 as his general power of attorney holder against the present appellant who was defendant No.3 and accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 who are his father and brothers. The suit was for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction against the defendants with respect to land Survey Nos388/1 and 389/3, measuring about 16 acres, situated in Mehkar village of Bhalki taluka. The said suit was decreed against the defendants including the present appellant. The suit was for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction against the defendants with respect to land Survey Nos388/1 and 389/3, measuring about 16 acres, situated in Mehkar village of Bhalki taluka. The said suit was decreed against the defendants including the present appellant. There is a detailed reference in the said judgment to the accused in this case challenging the grant of occupancy in respect of the said lands in favour of deceased Beerappa before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority at Bidar and thereafter before this Court without any success. The Trial Court has also noticed the land dispute being the bone of contention between the parties creating bad blood between them. 11. The machinery of law was set in motion in this case by PW.2 - Tatyrao who is the son of deceased Beerappa, lodging a complaint before the police. The complaint was lodged at about 5.00 p.m. on 18.12.1999. As per the endorsement made by the learned jurisdictional JMFC, the FIR had reached him on the same evening at 8.00 p.m. There is no unreasonable delay in lodging the complaint. The complainant had lost his father as well as his one brother and another brother had suffered injuries requiring hospitalization. Under the said circumstances, he has acted with reasonable dispatch in lodging the complaint. 12. In the said complaint, he has stated about the accused including the present appellant trespassing into land Survey No.388 forming themselves into an unlawful assembly holding deadly weapons like, Jambia, sickle, axe and Kamakatti and thereafter stabbing Beerappa with the same and when Prabhakar went to his rescue, assaulting him also with deadly weapons and on seeing both of them being brutally assaulted when PW.7 intervened, the accused assaulting him also. In the complaint, PW.2 has given in precise manner the description of the spot and also time of the incident. PWs.2 and 7 during their deposition have clearly stated about it and learned Trial Court has also noted the same and chosen to accept their version. We have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.2 and 7 on this aspect and disagree with the Trial Court on the said aspect. 13. Pw.2 is an eyewitness to the incident and PW.7 is not only a witness to the incident but also he has suffered injury while trying to rescue his father and his brother - Prabhakar. We have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.2 and 7 on this aspect and disagree with the Trial Court on the said aspect. 13. Pw.2 is an eyewitness to the incident and PW.7 is not only a witness to the incident but also he has suffered injury while trying to rescue his father and his brother - Prabhakar. In view of the Civil Court judgment referred to earlier, there is no doubt about the fact that the deceased being the owner of the land, accused including the present appellant having entered upon the land armed with deadly weapons, have committed the offence of criminal trespass. It is no doubt true that, in this case Kamakatti used by the present appellant was not traced and produced before the Court. However, PW.18 - Investigating Officer has stated in his evidence that even though the incident took place on 18.12.1999, the present appellant remained absconding and he was traced and arrested only on 29.03.2009 and therefore due to lapse of nearly a decade it was impossible for the Investigating Officer to trace the said weapon. PW.7 is an injured eyewitness. He has clearly stated about the participation of the appellant in the commission of the offences along with accused Nos.1 to 4. PWs.2 and 7 have stated that appellant being armed with Kamakatti had constituted himself a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object to commit the murder of Beerappa and others, as a matter of vengeance for having failed to take possession of the said land, having lost the civil suit only about nine months prior to the incident. The learned Trial Court has noticed the evidence of PWs.2 and 7 which clearly show that the present appellant has actively participated in committing the murder of deceased Beerappa and Prabhakar along with accused Nos.1 to 4 and we have no reason to disagree with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge which is supported by evidence placed on record. 14. It was feebly contended before us that PWs.2 and 7 are interested witnesses and in view of the land dispute they have falsely implicated the present appellant and accused Nos.1 to 4. 14. It was feebly contended before us that PWs.2 and 7 are interested witnesses and in view of the land dispute they have falsely implicated the present appellant and accused Nos.1 to 4. The said argument did not find favour with this Court in the appeal preferred by accused Nos.1 to 4 against their conviction in Criminal Appeal No.1468/2004 and we are also not impressed with the same. The two cut injuries found on PW.7 by PW.13 supports the version of PW.7 that he was present at the time of the incident and he has suffered injuries while trying to rescue his father and brother. The incident had taken place at about 2.00 p.m. and therefore there was no possibility for PW.7 making any mistake in identifying the real culprits. Even otherwise, PWs.2 and 7 have lost their father and brother in the incident and therefore there is no plausible reason for them to let off the real culprits and to falsely implicate the present appellant and other accused that too after having succeeded in the civil suit. On re-appreciating the entire evidence, we are satisfied that the trial Court has correctly assessed the evidence and come to a proper conclusion and that being so there is no reason to disagree with the same. Therefore, we hold that the present appellant is guilty of the offences charged against him and there is no reason to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in S.C.No.67/2009 dated 31.12.2011 is confirmed.