IMPORTANT POINTS
1. A court exercising appellate power must not only consider questions of law but also questions of fact and in doing so it must subject the evidence to a critical scrutiny. The judgment of the High Court must show that the court really applied its mind to the facts of the case as particularly when the offence alleged is of a serious nature and may attract a heavy punishment.
2. High Court in exercising power conferred by Code and before reaching its conclusion upon facts, should give always proper weight and consideration to such matters as the view of the trial Judge as to credibility of witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that they have been acquitted at trial and the right of accused to benefit of any doubt.

JUDGMENT

B. Sudershan Reddy, J.—

Leave granted.

2. All the accused-appellants were charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 504, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but were acquitted of all the charges by the trial court. On appeal preferred by the State of Karnataka, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal in relation to all the appellants and convicted them under Section 304 (Part-II) read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and imposed a fine of Rs.30,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three years. Few Relevant Facts:

3. On 9th September, 1998 at about 6.00 p.m. one Shivalingayya lodged a first information report before the Sub-Inspector of Yedrami Police Station inter alia alleging that his son Sharanaiah was murdered by four persons namely Sangappa(A-1), Sharanappa(A-2), Malappa(A-3) and Jagadavappa (A-4). It is alleged in the report that on the fateful day Shivalingayya and his wife – Boramma (PW-1) joined their son Sharanaiah (deceased) in the fields to remove the unwanted weeds from their land. During that time all the accused persons were passing by the side of the complainant’s land along with their bullocks and all of a sudden one bullock strayed into their fields and started grazing the crops. The deceased on finding that the bullock so entered into the fields asked the appellants to ensure that no damages caused to the crops. Enraged by the demand so made by the deceased all the accused started abusing the deceased. The matter did not end there. It is further alleged that Sharanappa (A-2) caught hold of the deceased, floored him to the ground and gagged his mouth and Sangappa (A-1) attacked the deceased with a knife and the other two accused Mallapa and Jagadevappa (A-3 & A-4) respectively hit the deceased on his back and legs with stones. Shivalingayya and his wife (PW-1) made an attempt to rescue their son but A-2 and A-3 forcefully pushed them aside. In the report, it is alleged that all the accused trespassed into the fields with the common intention of committing murder of the deceased as the deceased interfered in a matter concerning some illicit relationship between the sister of the accused and one Siddanna.

4. Having received the first information report PW-11 registered a case against all the accused on the file of Yadrami Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 504, 302 read with Section 34, IPC. The next day i.e. 10th September, 1998, PW-11 commenced the investigation and completed the formalities including recording of the statement of witnesses and handed over the case for further investigation by the Circle Inspector (PW-12) who also visited the scene of offence and drawn panchanama in the presence of two panch witnesses (Ex. P4) and seized the several incriminating articles. The accused were arrested on 25th September, 1998.

5. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, on the basis of the material available on record framed charges against all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 302 read with Section 34, IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Sessions case was transferred to the Fast Track Court, Gulbarga for the trial. The Fast Track Court vide judgment and order dated 4th December, 2003 acquitted the accused of all the charges framed against them and held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. On appeal preferred by the State of Karnataka against the order of acquittal the High Court by the impugned order dated 10th June, 2009 reversed the order of acquittal and accordingly sentenced all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-II) read with Section 34, IPC. Be it noted, the High Court did not record any finding whatsoever with regard to the charge for the offence punishable under Section 447