Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 852 (KAR)

Annappa K. B S/O Basappa v. State Of Karnataka

2022-07-05

K.SOMASHEKAR, SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : The appeal in Crl.A.No.420/2020 relating to appellant/accused No.1 namely Annappa K B with regard to the judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.10015/2018 and whereby convicted the said accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC, 1860. 2. Whereas the appeal in Crl.A.No.12/2021 is filed by the State by challenging the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.10015/2018 dated 30.12.2019 in respect of the aforesaid appellant/accused No.2 namely Vinayaka .K.A., relating to the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 114 read with Section 34 of IPC, 1860. 3. The aforesaid appeal arises out of the same judgment in S.C.No.10015/2018, but in respect of accused No.2 is concerned, the State has preferred an appeal and seeking intervention relating to the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court and seeking to convict the accused for the charges leveled against him. Insofar as accused No.1 Annappa K B who is an appellant in the connected appeal and whereby seeking intervention by considering grounds urged therein and setting aside the judgment of conviction rendered in S.C.No.10015/2018 and seeking acquittal of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, 1860. However, these appeals are arising out of the same impugned judgment in S.C.No.10015/2018. Therefore, they are disposed of through this common judgment. 4. Heard the learned counsel Sri. B. Ravindra for accused No.2/respondent in Crl.A.No.12/2021 and so also the learned counsel Sri. C.H. Hanumantharaya for appellant/accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.420/2020 respectively and common argument as addressed by the learned Addl. SPP for State in both these appeals respectively as rank of the appellant/State in Crl.A.No.12/2021 and so also representing the State as rank of the respondent in the connected appeal. Perused the judgment rendered in S.C.No.10015/2018. Factual matrix of these appeals are as under: 5. It is the case of the prosecution that there was an ill-will developed in between the deceased Ganapthi .K.B. and the accused persons who arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2. But the accused No.1 Annappa K B and also the deceased Ganapthi K B are the sons of Basappa. The ill-will developed between the deceased and also with his brother who is arraigned as accused No.1 relating to taking of electricity from the T.C. which was taken by accused No.1 and his other brothers whereby situated in the land bearing Sy.No.55 of Belanduru, Mailarikoppa village of Sagar Taluk. The ill-will developed between the deceased and also with his brother who is arraigned as accused No.1 relating to taking of electricity from the T.C. which was taken by accused No.1 and his other brothers whereby situated in the land bearing Sy.No.55 of Belanduru, Mailarikoppa village of Sagar Taluk. The accused No.1 was refused to share the electricity supply with the deceased Ganapathi K B and he was always making some altercation with him that he should not take power from T.C. situated in the land bearing Sy.No.55. But the deceased Ganapathi K B has no right either drawing/taking power supply to his borewell from the said T.C. Since the crop grown in the land of deceased Ganapathi K B has almost dried for want of water to the said crops. The deceased who has forced the accused No.1 who is his brother to share the power supply and he was also made some arrangement to take the power supply from the T.C. situated in the land bearing Sy.No.55 with the help of CW.10 who is an electrician on 05.01.2018 at around 8.30 a.m. 6. It further transpires that at that time, accused No.1 Annappa K B alleged that he made some quarrel with the electrician and send him back. After deceased Ganapathi K B who tried to take the power connection which has owned by putting ladder to the said T.C. at that time, accused No.2 namely Vinayak K A who is none other than the son of accused No.1 Annappa K B in the aforesaid case had come to the spot for grazing cattle. He has picked up quarrel with the deceased Ganapathi K B and abused him in filthy language as alleged and also in support of his father who is arraigned as accused No.1 to remove the ladder which was put by the deceased Ganapathi K B as he is making some illegal attempt to take the electricity from the T.C. which belongs to them. Accused No.1 at the instigation of accused No.2 who is none other than his son assaulted the deceased Ganapathi K B with means of sickle on his left leg and also caused injuries by hitting his left leg ankle joint. Accused No.1 at the instigation of accused No.2 who is none other than his son assaulted the deceased Ganapathi K B with means of sickle on his left leg and also caused injuries by hitting his left leg ankle joint. In pursuance of the act alleged about accused No.1 and the instigation made by accused No.2, deceased Ganapathi K B who fell down by ladder which was put by him for intention to draw the electricity supply from the T.C. When the deceased Ganapathi K B fell on the ground that there was an allegation against accused No.1 who assaulted the deceased Ganapathi K B with a means of sickle on his back and also on forehead has resulted in causing some bleeding injuries. In view of the injuries sustained by him in that incident, the deceased succumbed to injuries while on his way to Shivamogga Nanjappa Hospital at around 11.10 a.m. 7. In pursuance of the act of accused, by filing of the complaint by PW.1 Bharat Kumar, criminal law was set into motion by registering FIR, subsequent to registering crime against accused, the investigating officer has taken the case for investigation and the made thorough investigation and laid the charge sheet before the court of Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagara vide order dated 12.04.2018 in C.C.No.168/2018. Subsequent to laying of charge sheet by investigating officer against accused Nos.1 and 2 as contemplated under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. has committed the case to the Sessions Court in S.C.No.10015/2018 and whereby the charges were framed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC, 1860 respectively whereby on prima facie material being found against accused persons, charges were framed against the accused, whereby the accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, they were recorded separately. 8. Subsequent to framing of charge relating to the offence reflected therein, the prosecution has led the evidence subjected to the examination of PW.1 to PW.24 and got marked several documents Ex.P1 to Px.P50 and so also got marked material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.11. 9. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution that the accused were subjected to examination as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against them. Whereby, the accused has declined the evidence of prosecution. 9. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution that the accused were subjected to examination as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against them. Whereby, the accused has declined the evidence of prosecution. The same was recorded separately but the accused was called upon to enter into the defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C., whereby they did not choose to enter into any defence evidence on their behalf. Accordingly Ex.D1 i.e. FIR was marked on their behalf. 10. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution and also got marked Ex.D1 i.e. FIR on the part of the defence side and whereby heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and counter arguments advanced by the defence counsel whereby the Trial Court has gone through the evidence of PW.1 who is the author of the complaint and also the son of the deceased Ganapathi K B who filed complaint at Ex.P1 and so also the evidence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 and they are the brothers of accused No.1 Annappa K B and so also the deceased Ganapathi K B. In addition to that having gone through the fulcrum of the spot mahazar at Ex.P3, so also the fulcrum in the inquest mahazar at Ex.P16 and another mahazar at Ex.P21 and FSL report at Ex.P27 and so also seizure mahazar at Ex.P31 inclusive of post mortem report at Ex.P35 and also opinion of the doctor relating to weapon at Ex.P37. Based on their evidence inclusive of the evidence of investigating officer who is examined as PW.22 – E. Manjunath, CPI and PW.23 – Suresh, PSI and PW.24 – Diwakara, CPI, led in by the prosecution and whereby the Trial Court was convinced by the evidence rendering a conviction judgment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, 1860 in respect of accused No.1 Annappa K B but rendering a acquittal judgment in respect of accused No.2 Vinayaka K A who is none other than the son of accused No.1 Annappa K B for the offence under Section 302 and 114 read with Section 34 of IPC, 1860 which is incorporated in the operative portion of the judgment. It is this judgment which has been challenged under these appeals respectively by urging various grounds for seeking intervention. 11. Learned counsel Sri. It is this judgment which has been challenged under these appeals respectively by urging various grounds for seeking intervention. 11. Learned counsel Sri. C.H. Hanumantharaya for appellant/accused No.1 Annappa K B has taken us through the evidence of PW.4 who is none other than the brother of deceased Ganapathi K B and he has specifically stated in the evidence that there was ill-will developed between the deceased and his brother accused No.1 who is arraigned as accused No.1 in the aforesaid case whereby criminal prosecution was initiated against him and also his son. The ill-will also developed relating to the partition of the house property and they are not in talking terms with each other. Therefore, it is evident that only ill-will developed between them is a story that has been created and foist the case against the appellant/accused No.1 Annappa K B as well as accused No.2 Vinayak K A who is none other than his son in the connected case. The material witnesses on the part of the prosecution relating to PW.9 – Sachin who is an electrician secured by deceased Ganapathi K B who is clearly stated in his evidence that he is not at all working in the KEB and he is doing the electrical repair works and he is not at all authorized to do any work relating to the electric poles and the main electric wires and also replacement of the electric wires but he has been secured by deceased Ganapathi K B to the aforesaid landed property relating to taking connection from the T.C. pole which is situated in the land belonging to accused No.1 Annappa K B. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.9 – Sachin who is an electrician and who has secured by deceased Ganapathi K B, it is clear that deceased Ganapathi K B was making an attempt to take illegal electric power supply directly from the pole for which al the surrounding owners of the lands objected. This aspect has not been considered by the Trial Court. From the evidence of PW.9 Sachin who is an electrician has not verified whether the deceased had filed any application to the KEB for taking the electricity power supply to his borewell. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased was making attempt to take electricity supply illegally. 12. This aspect has not been considered by the Trial Court. From the evidence of PW.9 Sachin who is an electrician has not verified whether the deceased had filed any application to the KEB for taking the electricity power supply to his borewell. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased was making attempt to take electricity supply illegally. 12. It is further contended that though the evidence had led in by the prosecution but on record, the prosecution suffers from contradictions, improvement and also omission. In view of contradiction and improvement and so also omission, it is noticed that certainly the benefit of doubt is missing in the theory of prosecution which ought to have been extended to the accused only but the Trial Court did not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective but held conviction against accused No.1 Annappa K B and therefore, in this appeal it requires to re-appreciate the evidence and also revisiting of the impugned judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court against accused No.1 Annappa K B. insofar as the motive factors are concerned. The Trial Court ought to have appreciated in proving motive which is an important factor in cases where only circumstantial evidence are available unlike the cases where there are eyewitness to speak about the incident. In this case as narrated in the complaint and based upon the complaint, criminal law was set into motion. Therefore, the Trial Court ought to have appreciated the evidence in respect of bringing motive factor and it is also important factor to arrive at proper conclusion beside the Trial Court has rendered a conviction judgment against accused No.1 Annappa K B who is none other than the brother of deceased Ganapathi K B. More so the Trial Court has not considered ill-will developed in between deceased Ganapathi K B and also the family members of accused No.1 Annappa K B. The deceased Ganapathi K B has also developed ill-will with all the neighbouring land owners in connection with drawing of electric power supply from the T.C. pole and the same has not been considered by the Trial Court but rendered conviction judgment against accused No.1 Annappa K B. Hence, in these appeals it requires for revisiting the impugned judgment of conviction and so also reappreciation of the entire evidence on record. Whereas the evidence relating to the eyewitness, they are the relatives of deceased Ganapathi K B and also equally relatives of accused No.1 Annappa K B but none of the independent witness on the part of the prosecution has been cited as witness in the charge sheet. Even in the evidence of eyewitness, there are improvements in their evidence and hence their evidence cannot be let in and resulting in rendering conviction judgment against accused No.1 Annappa K B. But the Trial Court had rendered acquittal judgment in respect of accused No.2 Vinayaka K A who is none other than son of accused No.1 Annappa K B and more accused No.2 Vinayaka K A who is none other than brother son of deceased Ganapathi K B whose case is ended in acquittal who is involved only for the allegation that he has abetted his father while the deceased Ganapathi K B putting the ladder for drawing electric power supply from the T.C. pole which was situated in the landed property bearing Sy.No.55. There is an acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court in respect of accused No.2 Vinayaka K A is concerned, the same benefit could be extended to accused No.1 Annappa K B mere because the deceased has succumbed to injuries which cannot be the ingredients of Section 302 of IPC, 1860 and necessarily accused No.1 Annappa K B is only a cause of death of deceased Ganapathi K B. When the deceased Ganapathi K B was shifting from the scene of crime in order to provide treatment as there was delay in providing the treatment, the deceased Ganapathi K B succumbed to injuries and the complaint came to be lodged by the complainant PW.1 Bharat Kumar who is none other than the son of deceased Ganapathi K B whereby criminal prosecution has been initiated against accused persons only because the accused has alleged to have commit the murder of deceased Ganapathi K B. The same has been incorporated in the complaint which is at Ex.P1. 13. 13. It is relevant to refer the evidence of PW.9 Sachin who is an electrician that he was not at all working in the KEB and he was doing the electrical repair works and he was not at all authorized to do any work relating to the electric poles and the main electric wires and also replacement of the electric wires but he has been secured by deceased Ganapathi K B to the aforesaid landed property relating to taking connection from the T.C. pole which is situated in the land belonging to accused No.1 Annappa K B. But the appellant/accused No.1 Annappa K B and deceased Ganapathi K B have separate bore wells in their respective lands. Therefore, the question of the appellant/accused No.1 Annappa K B about drawing of electric power supply and as per the evidence of PW.9, he is not an eyewitness to the incident even though it is narrated in the complaint and based upon the complaint, criminal law was set into motion. 14. The prosecution theory is that the alleged incident was occurred on 05.01.2018 at around 8.30 a.m. and the complaint was lodged by the complainant PW.1 at 12.30 p.m. Therefore, it is evident that the complainant has simply dragged the time in order to hatching a criminal conspiracy i.e. in terms of plan to fix the appellant/accused as there is a serious ill-will developed between the deceased Ganapathi K B and so also accused No.1 Annappa K B who is none other than the brother of deceased Ganapathi K B. The complainant PW.1 Bharat Kumar with the help of PW.2 to 4 who are the close relatives hatched a plan for implicating the appellant/accused in the alleged incident. Therefore, in this appeal it requires for re-appreciation of evidence if not certainly the accused would be the sufferer and there shall be some miscarriage of justice to the accused No.1 Annappa K B who is none other than the brother of deceased Ganapathi K B. 15. Therefore, in this appeal it requires for re-appreciation of evidence if not certainly the accused would be the sufferer and there shall be some miscarriage of justice to the accused No.1 Annappa K B who is none other than the brother of deceased Ganapathi K B. 15. The second limb of argument has been advanced by learned counsel by referring the evidence of PW.2 to 4 that their evidence is not corroborated with each other and there are some lacunas which are found in their evidence but also noticed that the Trial Court has not taken into consideration the lacunas of these material witnesses even though the investigating officer has not been investigating the case relating to the criminal antecedents of deceased Ganapathi K B who is none other than the brother of accused No.1 Annappa K B. The age of the anti-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased is not stated. According to the prosecution theory, the major injury sustained by the deceased is on his left leg and it is not a vital part. The prosecution has not placed any material to show that accused No.1 Annappa K B had some preparation to take away the life of deceased Ganapathi K B. Therefore, there is no motive and the same has not been appreciated by the Trial Court. It only dealt upon the evidence of PW.2 to PW.4 and also evidence of PW.1 thereby rendering conviction judgment against accused No.1 Annappa K B. The deceased who fell down from the pole whereby putting the ladder with an intention to draw electric power supply from the T.C. He was taken in a motorcycle for getting treatment even after the incident occurred and also injuries sustained as narrated in the post mortem report and due to the said injuries, the deceased Ganapathi K B succumbed. But the complaint was lodged by complainant Pw.1 Bharat Kumar by setting up a theory by implicating accused No.1 Annappa K B and also accused No.2 Vinayaka K A, who is his son. 16. However, the Trial Court has to appreciate the evidence and entire case of the prosecution and certain evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 to Pw.4 and entire mahazar to the circumstantial evidence. 16. However, the Trial Court has to appreciate the evidence and entire case of the prosecution and certain evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 to Pw.4 and entire mahazar to the circumstantial evidence. But principle is that each circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be established by cogent and reliable evidence, that the circumstances relied upon must be such as cannot be explained on any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. It is well settled law that all the circumstances must provide a complete chain, no link of which must be missing and they must unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and excludes any hypothesis consistent with his innocence. However, the domain vested with the prosecution in circumstantial evidence and also evidence relating to theory of prosecution, every chain established by prosecution without giving any room of doubt and any clouds of doubt to fix the accused No.1 Annappa K B for the alleged incident and also causing death of deceased Ganapathi K B for the serious offence under Section 302 of IPC, 1860. On all these premise, learned counsel Sri. C.H. Hanumantharaya for appellant/accused No.1 seeking intervention in this appeal if not the appellant/accused No.1 Annappa K B would be the sufferer and also substantially miscarriage of justice would arise, consequently seeking intervention on the grounds that have been urged in respect of accused No.1 Annappa K B and setting aside the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.10015/2018 dated 30.12.2019, but awarding order on sentence on 09.01.2020 and seeking acquittal of accused No.1 Annappa K B for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, 1860 insisting to pay fine amount. 17. Learned counsel Sri. B. Ravindra for respondent/accused No.2 namely Vinayak K A who is the son of accused No.1 Annappa K B and whereby he has taken us through the evidence of Pw.2 to Pw.4 and so also the evidence of PW.1 who is the author of the complaint at Ex.P1 and so also the criminal law was set into motion based upon the complaint by registering FIR to proceed further to hold inquest over dead body of deceased Ganapathy K B and drew the mahazar inclusive of spot mahzar. But Pw.2 to Pw.4 are alleged to be direct evidence on the part of the prosecution and they subjected to examination and also alleged to have been stated in their evidence but they are the brothers of deceased Ganapathi K B and also brothers of accused No.1 Annappa K B. There was ill-will developed in between deceased Ganapathi K B and accused No.1 Annappa K B but this accused No.2 who is none other than the brother son of deceased Ganapathi K B and more so there is omission, contradiction and improvement. The same can be seen from their evidence itself, but the allegation is that on provocation of accused No.2 Vinayaka K A that accused No.1 Annappa K B alleged to have been assaulted deceased Ganapathi K B by means of sickle on his left leg resulting in sustaining injuries while he was fell down on the ground by putting the ladder and on instigation by accused No.2 Vinayaka K A who is none other than the son of accused No.1 Annappa K B alleged to have been assaulted deceased Ganapathi K B. As a resultant, deceased Ganapathi K B sustained with injuries as noted in the post mortem report. But Pw.18 and PW.20 who are the witnesses secured by investigating officer in respect of M.O.4, M.O.9 and M.O.10. These material objects were seized at the instance of accused No.1 Annappa K B from his house, however doubt would arise in their evidence. 18. Investigating Officer has also drawn the seizure mahazar at Ex.P31. But Pw.18 and PW.20 who are the witnesses secured by investigating officer in respect of M.O.4, M.O.9 and M.O.10. These material objects were seized at the instance of accused No.1 Annappa K B from his house, however doubt would arise in their evidence. 18. Investigating Officer has also drawn the seizure mahazar at Ex.P31. Ex.P27 is the FSL report and also subjected to detect blood stains on M.O.4, M.O.9 and M.O.10 and also blood shed found on M.O.1 to M.O.3 and M.O.6 to M.O.8 belongs to ‘A’ group and it is the blood stain of deceased Ganapathi K B. The prosecution even though let in evidence by subjecting to examination of several witnesses and also facilitated certain reliance insofar as accused No.2 Vinayaka K A relating to the abetment to say provocation to his father Accused No.1 to commit murder of his uncle i.e. deceased Ganapathi K B. But the case is against running in acquittal statement and even statement made by PW.2 to Pw.4 against accused No.2 Vinayaka K A who is none other than the brother son of deceased Ganapathi K B. Even PW.2 to PW.4 had given a statement before the investigating officer during the course of investigation under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. are requires under scanning but there is no allegation made against accused No.2 Vinayaka K A why these witnesses had given such statement before the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC-1, Sagara as held under Section 164 of Cr.P.C are required to be scanned, but there is only presence of accusation against this accused as per the statement of PW.2 to Pw.4 and they are the brothers of deceased Ganapathi K B and also equally brothers of accused No.1 Annappa K B. The only allegation against accused No.2 Vinayak K A is that he has abetted his father – Accused No.1 to commit the murder of deceased nothing proving that PW.2 to Pw.4 have been stated in their evidence verified the theory of prosecution to secure conviction against accused No.2 also. However, the evidence of witnesses who are cited in the charge sheet is the family members and also relatives of accused No.1 Annappa K B and so also the relatives of deceased Ganapathi K B. Even though they have been stated in their evidence about ill-will developed in between the deceased Ganapathi K B and his brother accused No.1 Annappa K B. Therefore, it is evident that there is no cordial relationship between deceased Ganapathi K B and the family members of accused No.1 Annappa K B. 19. Accused No.1 who is none other than the own brother of deceased alleging that committing of murder of his brother by assaulting his left leg by means of sickle on the vital part of the deceased Ganapathi K B i.e. on the leg part which is termed as popliteal fossa which is according to opinion expressed by the doctor PW.19 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and prepared a post mortem report. These are all sufficient cause for death of a person as opined. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused No.2 Vinayaka K A relating to abetment to his father to eliminate his uncle namely deceased Ganapathi K B. As a result of that, accused No.1 Annappa K B assaulted the deceased with a means of sickle on his left leg and also causing injuries by hitting his left leg and also succumbed to the injuries as the theory setup to implicate in a serious case. 20. However, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused No.2 Vinayaka K A that there was an instigation to the accused No.1 Annappa K B to eliminate deceased Ganapathi K B. No other go, the Trial Court has rendered an acquittal judgment against accused No.2 relating to the offence under Section 302 and 114 read with Section 34 of IPC, 1860 and rightly acquitted the aforesaid accused and seeking dismissal of the state appeal being devoid of merits. 21. On contradict to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel Sri. C.H. Hanumantharaya for appellant/accused No.1 Annappa K B in one appeal as stated supra and so also the argument advanced by learned counsel Sri. B.Ravindra in respect of respondent/accused No.2 in connected appeal preferred by the State by challenging the acquittal judgment but the learned Addl. 21. On contradict to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel Sri. C.H. Hanumantharaya for appellant/accused No.1 Annappa K B in one appeal as stated supra and so also the argument advanced by learned counsel Sri. B.Ravindra in respect of respondent/accused No.2 in connected appeal preferred by the State by challenging the acquittal judgment but the learned Addl. SPP who has addressed common arguments even in the acquittal judgment and so also in the conviction judgment for the offences for which the charges leveled against them. But PW.19 Dr. Parappa who conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased Ganapahi K B and issued post mortem report as per Ex.P35 insofar as the injuries inflicted over the deceased and even oral evidence of the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body and perusal of the examination report and also evidence of PW.19 which has noted certain injuries such as: • Cut lacerated wound present over the left calf region (back side of left leg) size 4 ½ inches width, 6 ½ inches length and 2 ½ inches deep in size and soft tissues exposed with injury of neurovascular bundles, like popilteal artery & veins. • Abression present over the left side of midaxillary region size 2 ½ x ¼ inches. • Incised wound present over the right scapular region size 3x ¼ inches size. • Abrasion present over the left side of forehead 2x1 cm. • Lacerated wound present over the forehead 2 in nos. size about 2x1cm. • Multiple scratch marks seen over the right side of neck. The cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to popliteal artery & vein. 22. • Abrasion present over the left side of forehead 2x1 cm. • Lacerated wound present over the forehead 2 in nos. size about 2x1cm. • Multiple scratch marks seen over the right side of neck. The cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to popliteal artery & vein. 22. M.O.4 –sickle specifically which alleged to used by the accused No.1 Annappa K B to assault deceased Ganapathi K B as a result sustained injuries even M.O.4 – sickle used by the accused which cause some injuries due to abrasive bleeding found on the left leg of the deceased Ganapathy K B. Therefore, the evidence of Pw.2 to Pw.4 have corroborated with the evidence of PW.19 being the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body and noticed some injuries which was inflicted over the person and also there was an ill-will developed in between deceased and so also the accused No.1 Annappa K B and equally there was an ill-will naturally developed by accused No.2 Vinayka K A but the incident took place on 05.01.2018 at around 8.30 a.m. and whereby the deceased Ganapathi K B forcibly tried to drawing the power supply through T.C. pole that he was making some attempt to connect to the main line through wire by putting the ladder to the electrical pole. At that time, the accused namely accused No.2 Vinayaka K A has seen deceased Ganapathi K B and not allowed to climb up the ladder. This theory of prosecution has been noticed in the evidence of PW.2 to PW.4 and even they have been intervened and specifically quarrel took in between the deceased Ganapathi K B and accused No.1 Annappa K B and that Pw.2 to 4 have given first aid by wrapping the wound with the dothi belonging to deceased Ganapathi K B and they have also made attempt to shift the deceased Ganapathi K B from the scene of crime to provide medical treatment to him but the deceased Ganapathi K B in view of heavy bleeding coming from his left leg, he lost his conscious and fell down. PW.2 could not shift him in the bike and he went to his house and brought car to shift the deceased Ganapathi K B to hospital for treatment at the relevant point of time, PW.1 along with others have shifted the deceased Ganapathi K B to Sagar hospital and after providing first aid treatment to him and also advised to provide better treatment but he was succumbed to injuries while he was on way to hospital. These are the evidence let in by the prosecution and so also Pw.1 and Pw.5. They have stated in their evidence clearly and inclusive of evidence of Pw.13 who is the wife of deceased Ganapathi K B and they are consistently relating to the ill-will developed in between accused No.1 – Annappa K B and also his brother deceased Ganapathi K B relating to partition effected in their family property but Pw.2 to Pw.4 on the part of the prosecution, they are the direct witnesses relating to the direct evidence and their evidence found corroborated with the evidence of Pw.1, Pw.5 and Pw.13 who are the material witnesses and inclusive of consideration evidence of Pw.13 and Pw.18 accordingly investigating officer has conducted investigation and drew seizure mahazar as per Ex.P31 in their presence. These are the evidence let in by the prosecution and also appreciated by the Trial Court and has rightly come to the conclusion by rendering a conviction judgment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, 1860 in respect of accused No.1 Annappa K B and the same be confirmed as contended by the State and the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court in respect of accused No.2 Vinayaka K A who is none other than the son of accused No.1 Annappa K B and also stated to be brother son of deceased Ganapathi K B and the case against accused No.2 rendering acquittal judgment relating to the offence under Sections 302 and 114 of IPC,1860 read with Section 34 of IPC, 1860. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the aforesaid evidence relating to the role of accused No.2 Vinayak K A whereby abeted otherwise to instigate his father accused No.1 Annappa K B to eliminate his uncle deceased Ganapathi K B. Therefore, accused No.1 Ganapathi K B alleged to assault the deceased Ganapathi K B with means of sickle by hitting left leg part as a result of that sustaining abrasive bleeding injury. Consequently, the deceased Ganapathi K B fell down from the ladder sustaining injuries and succumbed to injuries. Therefore, in these appeals, it requires intervention insofar as accused No.2 Vinayak K A is concerned and if not certainly there shall be miscarriage of justice as contended by the State in their appeal. 23. Insofar as offences alleged in respect of accused No.1 Annappa K B and whereby the Trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused and the same has been considered and there are no justifiable grounds urged for intervention for conviction judgment against accused No.1 Annappa K B. 24. It is in this context of the contention made by the learned counsel Sri. C.H.Hanumantharaya for appellant/accused No.1 and so also the learned counsel Sri. B Ravindra which is contradicted by the learned Addl. SPP for State, it is relevant to refer the evidence of Pw.19 being the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased Ganapathi K B as per Ex.P35 and opined that as a result of injury to popliteal artery & vein. The popliteal artery is a deeply placed continuation of the femoral artery opening in the distal portion of the adductor magnus muscle. It courses through the popliteal fossa and ends at the lower border of the popliteus muscle, where it branches into the anterior and posterior tibial arteries. 25. The deepest (most anterior) structure in the fossa, the popliteal artery runs close to the joint capsule of the knee as it spans the intercondylar fossa. The superior muscular branches of the popliteal artery have clinically important anastomoses with the terminal part of the deep femoral and gluteal arteries. Because the popliteal artery is deep, it may be difficult to feel the popliteal pulse. The superior muscular branches of the popliteal artery have clinically important anastomoses with the terminal part of the deep femoral and gluteal arteries. Because the popliteal artery is deep, it may be difficult to feel the popliteal pulse. Palpation of this pulse is commonly performed with the person in prone position with the knee fixed to relax the popliteal fascia and hamstrings. The pulsations are best felt in the interior part of the fossa where the popliteal artery is related to the tibia. Weakening or loss of the popliteal pulse is a sign of a femoral artery obstruction. The same has been referred due to the opinion expressed by the doctor relating to the cause of death of deceased Ganapathi K B by sustaining injuries on the left leg of the below knee part i.e, ankle joint. 26. In the instant case, it is relevant to refer the concept of Mens rea. Mens rea is an essential part of deciding whether an act is culpable or not. Mens rea displays specific intent by the accused for the commission of the crime for which he is charged. The accused must be proven to have knowingly committed the crime, and had full knowledge of their actions and must have malafide intent towards the victim. Mens rea is also used in some civil suits, requiring the defendant to have been aware of the repercussions of their actions for a civil liability to arise, but usually, the Actus Reus takes precedence in cases of civil liability. 27. It is also relevant to refer the concept of Actus Reus is the physical aspect of a crime. The accused needs to have done something or omitted to do something, resulting in injury to the plaintiff, or the victim in civil cases. Without a guilty act, there can be no crime and no suit for damages can arise. An act alone does not make a crime, however, and both the intention of the person and the act itself, if such act is prohibited, combine to form the crime. In certain cases, circumstances of the case are also taken into consideration, and are often used to either conclusively prove guilt, or can be used to prove reasonable doubt of intention. Actus Reus can also be the omission of an act, by omitting to do something that the accused knows he is bound by duty or law to do. In certain cases, circumstances of the case are also taken into consideration, and are often used to either conclusively prove guilt, or can be used to prove reasonable doubt of intention. Actus Reus can also be the omission of an act, by omitting to do something that the accused knows he is bound by duty or law to do. 28. In the instant case, accused No.1 Annappa K B is none other than the brother of deceased Ganapathi K B and there exists ill-will developed in between the deceased i.e., the family members of the complainant and also accused No.1 Annappa K B and so also share of drawing up of electric power supply from the T.C. which is situated in the land belonging to the accused No.1 – Annappa K B, the same could be seen from the evidence of Pw.2 to Pw.4 and similarly in the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.5 and also Pw.13 who is none other than family members of deceased Ganapathi K B. Pw.13 who is the wife of deceased Ganapathi K B. Pw.1, Pw.2 to 4 are the family members not only to the deceased Ganapathi K B and so also they are family members of accused No.1 Annappa K B inclusive of family members of accused No.2 Vinayaka K A who is the son of accused No.1 Annappa K B and he being the brother son of deceased Ganapathi K B. 29. It is relevant to refer the definition of Section 300 of IPC, 1860 which reads as under: “Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or – Secondly, if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or- Thirdly, if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or – Fourthly, if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. If we analyse the definition under Section 300 of the IPC, culpable homicide is considered as murder if: o The act is committed with an intention to cause death. o The act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury for which the offender has knowledge that it would result in death. o The person has the knowledge that his act is dangerous and would cause death or bodily injury but still commits the act, this would amount to murder. The ingredients of murder relating to cause of death, there should be an intention to cause death and such bodily injury which is likely to cause death or the act must be done with the knowledge of the act is likely to cause the death of another. 30. In the instant case, it is relevant to refer Section 299 of IPC, 1860 relating to culpable homicide – whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. In Explanation 1 it is stated that – A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death. Explanation 2 – where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skillful treatment the death might have been prevented. 31. The causing of death even though the explanation mentioned under Section 299 of IPC, 1860 is a culpable homicide. The word homicide is supposedly derived from latin where “homo” means man and “cida” means killing. Thus, homicide means the killing of a man by a man. Homicide can be lawful or unlawful. Culpable homicide is punishable by law and is further divided into two categories: Culpable homicide amounting to murder Culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The difference between murder and culpable homicide is intention. If the intention is present the crime is said to be committed under Section 300 of IPC. If the intention is absent, then the crime is dealt under section 304 of IPC. 32. In the instant case, the definition of Section 299 of IPC, 1860 and so also definition of Section 300 IPC relating to explanatory note has been stated and also referred by appreciation of evidence of Pw.1, Pw.5 and Pw.13 and they are the sons and wife of deceased Ganapathi K B but Pw.2 to Pw.4 and they are the brothers of deceased Ganapathi K B. However, their evidence has already been referred supra, relating to ill-will developed between deceased and so also accused No.1 and his family member. 33. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel Sri. C H Hanumantharaya for appellant/accused No.1 Annappa K B and so also the contention made by the learned counsel B Ravindra whereby representing the respondent/accused No.2 Vinayaka K A in the aforesaid impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court. 34. However, keeping in view the evidence of these material witnesses on the part of the prosecution and so also, the contention made by learned counsel Sri C.H.Hanumantharaya for appellant/accused No.1 – Annappa K.B. whereby the aforesaid counsel has facilitated certain reliances. 34. However, keeping in view the evidence of these material witnesses on the part of the prosecution and so also, the contention made by learned counsel Sri C.H.Hanumantharaya for appellant/accused No.1 – Annappa K.B. whereby the aforesaid counsel has facilitated certain reliances. It is relevant to refer the reliance of Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 770 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 68 has held that “in the result, we allow this appeal but only to the extent that instead of Section 302 IPC the appellant shall stand convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. The fine imposed upon the appellant and the default sentence awarded to him shall remain unaltered. 35. In Satish Narayan Sawant vs. State of Goa (2009) 17 SCC 724 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has addressed issued relating to concept of Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of IPC relating to conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 304 part II and sentence of seven years imprisonment imposed. It has been extensively addressed in para 40 and 41 and it is held that “it is trite law that Section 304 of Part II comes into play when the death is caused by doing an act with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but there is no intention on the part of the accused either to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as it likely to cause death.” 36. In the case of Ghansham Dass vs. The State (Delhi Administration) (1978) 3 SCC 391 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “Section 300 Exception 2 and Sections 97, 100 and 103, deceased entering shop of accused to dissuade him from building a wall regarding which there were already disputes leading to a criminal case, deceased entering at midnight for such purpose but unarmed, stabbing of deceased by accused with a dangerous weapon, accused guilty of exceeding right of private defence of property.” In para 12 it is held that “in the circumstances, we feel that the conviction under Section 302 and the sentence for imprisonment for life cannot be sustained. We find the appellant guilty of an offence under Section 304(1) and sentence him to imprisonment for five years. We find the appellant guilty of an offence under Section 304(1) and sentence him to imprisonment for five years. To this extent the appeal is allowed.” 37. In the instant case, there was an ill-will developed in between deceased – K.B.Ganapathy and accused No.1 – Annappa K.B. who is his brother and the deceased was venturing to draw electric supply from the T.C. situated in the land belonging to accused No.1 who is his brother and secured PW.9 who is the electrician for taking electricity connection from the TC. Therefore, there was ill-will developed in between them. The same could be seen in the evidence of PWs.1, 5 and 13 and equally in the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 who are the brothers of deceased – K.B.Ganapathy and also brothers of accused No.1 K.B.Annappa, the same can be seen in their evidence on the prosecution theory. 38. In the reliance of Latel vs. State of Chattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 135 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held “Sections 300 Exception II and 304 Part I – Upon deceased entering the field in possession of accused-appellant and commencing to plough the land, appellant attacking the deceased with tabbal as a result of which deceased falling down on ground becoming unconscious but even thereafter appellant continuing his assault resulting in his death – according to the doctor, deceased sustained two head injuries which resulted in fracture of parietal and occipital bones and that those injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – held, appellant assaulted the deceased in exercise of right of private defence of his property but while doing so he exceeded his right in inflicting the fatal head injuries – hence, conviction under Section 304 Part I and sentence of 10 years RI upheld.” 39. These are all the reliances that have been facilitated by the learned counsel Sri C.H. Hanumantharaya for the appellant/Accused No.1. However, keeping in view the evidence of PWs.1 and 5 and so also, evidence of PW.13, but PW.1 – Bharathkumar who is no other than the son of deceased the criminal law was set into motion by receipt of his complaint as per Ex.P1. However, keeping in view the evidence of PWs.1 and 5 and so also, evidence of PW.13, but PW.1 – Bharathkumar who is no other than the son of deceased the criminal law was set into motion by receipt of his complaint as per Ex.P1. Subsequent to criminal prosecution initiated by recording the FIR and also following the procedure as per the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C and laying of the charge sheet against the accused, but it is relevant to refer Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in respect of proved, disproved and not proved. Insofar as the circumstantial evidence and the status are concerned in a case of circumstantial evidence, the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the complete chain of events which shall undoubtedly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The principle for basing a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence is that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. This was addressed in a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wakkar vs. State of U.P. (2011) 3 SCC 306 . 40. The domain is vested with the trial court to scrutinize the evidence. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the evidence carefully and see that acceptable evidence is accepted. The Court should adopt cautious approach for basing conviction on circumstantial evidence. Even the concept of evidence of eye witness – the evidence of eye-witness cannot be disbelieved merely because such witness has not reached in a particular manner. This was addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Motiram Padu Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 2018 SC 3245 ). Having examined all the eyewitnesses even if other persons present nearby, not examined, the evidence of eyewitness cannot be discarded, Courts are concerned with quality of evidence in a criminal trial. Conviction can be based on sole evidence if it inspires confidence. The same has been addressed in the case of Sheelam Ramesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 2000 SC 718 ). 41. Conviction can be based on sole evidence if it inspires confidence. The same has been addressed in the case of Sheelam Ramesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 2000 SC 718 ). 41. However, keeping in view the ratio of reliance and also the contention made by learned counsel Sri C.H.Hanumantharaya for the appellant/accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.420/2020 and so also, Sri B.Ravindra for respondent/accused No.2 in Crl.A.No.12/2021, it is deemed appropriate to refer Section 304 Part II of IPC which reads as under: 304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. In the instant case relating to the evidence of PW.19 the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued PM report as per Ex.P35. But the medical evidence corroborated ocular testimony, medical evidence is to be proved by the prosecution that the injuries inflicted upon the injured as a result of that injuries the deceased had lost his breath. Even in case of the circumstantial evidence motive factor bears an important significance. Motive always locks-up in the mind of the accused and sometime it is difficult to unlock. People do not act wholly without motive. The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its nonexistence, but scrutinize evidence cautiously. 42. But the law regarding circumstantial evidence is well-settled. When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests: 1) the circumstance from which an inference of guilt sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established 2) those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused. 3) circumstances taken cumulatively should form the chain complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. These circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. 3) circumstances taken cumulatively should form the chain complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. These circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. 43. There is no reason to differ from the conclusion reached by the trial judge, whereas the evidence of the eyewitness is disbelieved, and it is found that the weapons recovered were not stained with human blood, there remains hardly any circumstance against the accused to connect them against the crime. But it is not possible to uphold the conviction of the appellant on wholly unreliable and limping evidence. But the evidence is clinching and clearly implicates the accused persons are causing for infliction of injuries on the injured but the eyewitness account at corroborate that the medical evidence. The eyewitness sharply contradicted with each other with regard to the identity of the person who dealt the fatal blow on the person of the deceased with a deadly weapon. It was held that this was a vital discrepancy that could not be ignored on the part of prosecution but the accused was acquitted of the charge lugged against them, relying on the evidence available in the record, and by properly appreciating the same. 44. Whereas in the instant case, PW.19 being a Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued PM report, as per Ex.P35 but the doctor who performed the post-mortem over the dead body has admitted that he had prepared the post-mortem report subsequently in his office on the basis of the notes which he had prepared earlier. But there is inconsistency between ocular evidence and medical evidence. Therefore, in this appeal it requires for re-appreciation of evidence and also revisiting the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in respect of accused No.1 – Annappa K.B who is none other than the brother of deceased – Ganapathy K.B. But the case in respect of accused No.2 is ended in acquittal relating to the offence under Section 302 and 114 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860. But for the abetment otherwise to say the provocation made by accused No.2 that accused No.1 dealt a blow with means of M.O.4 – sickle and infliction of injuries on the hind parts of left side leg and the same has been seen in the opinion expressed by the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased. He has opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to popliteal artery and vain. However, keeping in view the provision of Section 107 of IPC and equally Section 114 of IPC, these two provisions when read together relating to abetment/provocation insofar as charges lugged against accused No.2, it is deemed appropriate that on closer reading and also come to the conclusion but the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt against accused No.2 relating to offence under Section 302, 114 r/w 34 of IPC and the ingredients relating to the aforesaid offences established by the prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence and consequently, rendering the judgment of acquittal in respect of accused No.2 in Crl.A.No.12/2021 whereby the appeal has been preferred by the State by challenging the judgment of acquittal, there is no perversity, absurdity or any inapplication of mind by the trial Court. Consequently, rendering the acquittal judgment and rightly arrived at a conclusion by acquitting accused No.2. When the case against accused No.2 has been ended in acquittal, the benefit of acquittal it should always be extended to the co-accused equally. Even accused No.1 – Annappa K.B. who is none other than the brother of deceased Ganapathy K.B. and whereby he last his breath by sustaining injuries but this accused No.1 – Annappa K.B. is said to be in judicial custody for almost all 3 years 5 days and more so he is aged about 62 years and he is incarceration even after held conviction by the trial Court. But in the criminal justice delivery system there are three theories -Reformative theory, Deterrent theory and Retributive theory. Relating to reformative theory of approach to the punishment to be curative more than to be deterrent in order to promote rehabilitation. But in the criminal justice delivery system there are three theories -Reformative theory, Deterrent theory and Retributive theory. Relating to reformative theory of approach to the punishment to be curative more than to be deterrent in order to promote rehabilitation. In the instant case, accused No.1 – Annappa K.B. who is no other than the senior brother of deceased – Ganapathy K.B and whereby the incident took place due to some ill-will developed in between them since the deceased was venturing to draw the electric supply from the T.C. situated in the land belonging to accused No.1. They were not in good terms and there was no harmonious relationship emerged in between the family of complainant and family of accused persons. But this accused No.1 – Annappa K.B. is in incarceration for almost 3 years 5 days. But keeping in view the provision of Section 302 of IPC and so also, the concept of mensrea and actus reus which is stated above and so also, closely analyzing the evidence of PWs.1, 5 and 13 inclusive of evidence of PWs.2 to 4 who are the brothers of deceased and accused No.1, but they are family members and moreso, accused No.1 – Annappa K.B. did not have any bad antecedents even prior to this incident also. But in the evidence it is noticed that there was some criminal antecedents about deceased – K.B.Ganapathy which is reflected in the evidence of PW.1 – Bharath Kumar who is no other than son of deceased and also the author of complaint at Ex.P1. It is relevant to state that there are no antecedents in respect of accused No.1 and he is in incarceration for almost 3 years 5 days. Therefore, the role of the accused No.1 and equally the role of accused No.2, it could be looked into very cautiously but the case in respect of accused No.2 ended in acquittal holding that the mere presence of accused No.2 in the spot at that time cannot be assumed that he has abetted accused No.1 to commit the offence. But having gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record, it clearly establishes that there was ill-will developed in between accused No.1 and deceased with regard to drawing the electric supply from the T.C. situated in the land belonging to accused No.1. But having gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record, it clearly establishes that there was ill-will developed in between accused No.1 and deceased with regard to drawing the electric supply from the T.C. situated in the land belonging to accused No.1. In this regard there was some quarrel took place and at the provocation of accused No.2, accused No.1 assaulted the deceased on his left leg with means of sickle. Therefore, due to the provocation and heated exchange of words, the incident took place on the spur of the moment as inferred, but there is no strong intention. Therefore, this being the factual position, we are of the considered view that the present case cannot be said to come under the purview of Section 302 of IPC, but it is a case falling under Section 304 Part II of IPC in view of some difference which arose in between Accused No.1 and deceased. 45. In view of the aforesaid reasons and findings, we are of the view that appellant/accused No.1 – Annappa K.B. deserves for conviction under Section 304 Part II of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC. He is in incarceration even after held conviction by the trial Court for almost 3 years 5 days. Therefore, it is suffice to hold that the period of incarceration he has undergone shall be termed as service of sentence in respect of conviction for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC and the same will meet the ends of justice in the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. However, the trial Court has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-to the wife of deceased CW.15 – Renuka under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to state that the same shall remain intact and the said amount shall be termed as amount of fine to be payable by accused No.1 for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and the same shall be termed as compensation. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellant/accused No.1 namely – Annappa K.B. S/o Basappa under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.A.No.420/2020 is allowed in part. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellant/accused No.1 namely – Annappa K.B. S/o Basappa under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.A.No.420/2020 is allowed in part. Consequently, the judgment of conviction dated 30.12.2019 and order of sentence dated 09.01.2020 rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.10015/2018 is hereby modified by convicting Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part -II of IPC instead of offence under Section 302 of IPC. The compensation awarded by the trial Court in the operative portion of the order on sentence awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-to the wife of deceased CW.15 – Renuka under Section 357 of Cr.P.C shall remain intact and the said amount shall be termed as amount of fine to be payable by accused No.1 for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and also be termed as compensation. The appeal preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.A.No.12/2021 is hereby rejected. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.10015/2018 dated 30.12.2019 acquitting accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 114 r/w Section 34 of IPC is hereby confirmed. However, Appellant/Accused No.1 is in incarceration soon after being convicted by the trial court for almost all 3 years 5 days. The period of incarceration shall be termed as service of sentence for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. Therefore, Registry of this Court is directed to forward a copy of the operative portion of the judgment to the Superintendent of jail authority, Central Prison, Shivamogga, where accused No.1 – Annappa K.B. S/o Basappa is housed with a direction to set him at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Ordered accordingly.