important point
Acquittal of a large number of co-accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of trustworthy witnesses.

Judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.These appeals are interlinked and therefore they are disposed of by this common Judgment.

2.The High Court by its Judgment dated 24th August, 2005 disposed of three appeals. Criminal Appeal 394 of 2001 was filed by the State of Karnataka questioning acquittal of the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). The other appeals were filed by the accused persons who were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 504 read with Section 149, Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC, Section 326 read with Section 149 and Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. In all 25 persons faced trial. However, the trial Court found only 6 of the accused persons to be guilty and therefore they filed appeals which were numbered as Criminal Appeal Nos.1344/2000 and 1359/2000. The other appeal was filed by the State as noted above.

3.The High Court acquitted S.Holeyappa (A-1) but held the other five to be guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Accordingly State’s appeal was allowed. The appeals filed by the accused persons were dismissed.

4.It is to be noted that while accepting the State’s appeal, the accused persons were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.

5.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :

The accused, the deceased and the material prosecution witnesses are all residents of Malladihalli village in Holalkere Taluk. Accused Nos. 1 and 4 are brothers. Accused No.2 is the son of accused No.4, whereas accused Nos. 3 and 5 are the sons of accused No.1. Accused No.6 is related to these accused. Similarly on prosecution side, Shivakumar (PW-2), Lokesh (PW-3) and Murthappa (PW-7) are the sons of the Kenchappa (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). Relation between the accused group and the deceased and his family members was strained over erecting an electric pole in the land of the accused, the line of which would have passed and benefited the deceased and his borewell in the land near by which was objected by the accused. This ill will and enmity ultimately resulted in the assault on the deceased and his sons on 2.10.1995. On that day, there was a festival and a procession was taken of the deity by the villagers. The deceased and his children had also joined the procession. According to the prosecution when the procession came near the post office by the side of which is also the house of the accused, the accused group suddenly pounced upon the deceased and his children and assaulted them. This took place around 6.30 P.M., or so in the evening. After the assault Kenchappa (deceased), P.W.2 Shivakumar, Lokesh were taken to the hospital. In spite of the treatment given to the injured Kenchappa, he breathed his last on 7.10.1995. Thereafter, PW-1 a nephew of the deceased approached the jurisdictional police at Holalkere and gave his written information as per Ex.P.1, P.W.25 Mohammad Arif, S.H.O. of the Police Station on receipt of the written information from P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No.290/1995 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 324, 307 read with Section 149 IPC against 18 named and other un-named accused and investigation was taken up. After the death of Kenchappa on 7.10.1995 the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC was also added. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The trial was held as the accused persons abjured guilt. Thirty nine witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version. The trial Court as noted above placed reliance on the evidence of large number of persons who are stated to be eye witnesses and held the accused persons guilty of several offences but acquitted them of the charge relatable to Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.

In appeal, the primary stand of the State was that the evidence on record left no manner of doubt that S