Judgment :-

Aftab Alam, J.

1. These three appeals arise from a common judgment and order passed by the Karnataka High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court disposed of two appeals, which came to it from a common judgment and order passed by the trial court. The High Court allowed the appeals insofar as Smt. Nagavva (accused no. 2) and Doddappa Ningappa Ugarkhod (accused no. 13) are concerned and acquitted them of all the charges. In regard to the rest of the accused (the present appellants before this Court) the appeals were dismissed and their conviction and the sentences given to them by the trial court was confirmed by the High Court.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2007 (that was the last among the three appeals to come to this Court) is at the instance of Sataveer Basappa Hariyal (accused no.1: He died on November 10, 2009 during the pendency of the appeal), Honnappa Shiddappa Banni (accused no. 3), Beerappa Shiddappa Huggi (accused no. 9) and Yallappa Kenchappa Vibhuti (accused no. 16). Criminal Appeal No. 1064 of 2005 has been filed by Beerappa Demasheppa Deshanur (accused no. 5) and Maruti Demasheppa Deshanur (accused no. 6). All the six appellants in these two appeals are convicted under section 302 read with section 149 and some other ancillary sections of the Penal Code. For committing murder, they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with the default sentence of imprisonment for six months. They are also given some lesser punishments for the various other offences but all the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

3. Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 2005 (which was the first among the three to come to this Court) is filed by Gangappa Ningappa Ugarkhod (accused no. 12). His conviction is mainly under section 326 read with section 149 beside some other ancillary sections of the Penal Code. He is sentenced under section 326/149 to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with the default sentence of imprisonment for six months. The relatively lesser sentences for other offences in his case too are directed to run concurrently with the main sentence.

4. Both the appellants-accused and the members of the prosecution party belong to the same family and live in the same village. According to the prosecution, Sataveer (accused no.1: appellant no. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2007) is the step brother of Siddappa. He carried a grudge against his father Basappa and the step brother Siddappa due to his father’s refusal to give him land in excess of his step brother. About three months prior to the occurrence, giving rise to the present case, there was an incident of assault by Sataveer and his mother Nagavva on Basappa. At that time Ningappa (the Complainant) had taken Basappa to hospital and had also prevailed upon Basappa to lodge a police report against Sataveer. Sometime later, the starter of the electric pump set in the land of Ningappa was stolen. He suspected the hand of Sataveer and his men in the theft and had filed a complaint with the police against some of the accused in the present case. This had further strained the relations between the two sides. Two days before the occurrence the complainant’s son Rudrappa had gone to fetch water from the bore-well. There the daughter of Beerappa (accused No. 9: appellant no. 3 in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2007) quarreled with him and abused him. On the same evening Beerappa and his people went to the house of the complainant and gave threats that they would finish off the complainant’s men.

5. On October 12, 1991 when Ningappa, his son Rudrappa and his younger brother Basavanneppa were in the farm house, Basavanneppa’s wife Kasturi (PW.3) came there at about 7.00 a.m. and asked them to bring the cattle from the house to the farm house. The complainant and his brother then proceeded from the farm house for their house; Kasturi was also coming behind them. On the way, as they passed in front of the Kan