IMPORTANT POINTS
In case of acquittal, interference is permissible only if appreciation of evidence by Trial Court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence.
Once a common object of an unlawful assembly is established, it is not necessary that all persons who form the unlawful assembly must be demonstrated to have committed the overt act.

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

By a judgment dated 31 October 2003, the Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar acquitted eleven persons who were tried for offences under Sections 143, 148, 323, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 ("penal code") and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908. The State challenged the order of acquittal in a criminal appeal while the injured complainant assailed the acquittal in a criminal revision. By its judgment dated 14September 2010, the Karnataka High Court allowed the appeal in part and convicted ten of the accused (accused Nos. 1 to 4, 6 to 8 and 10 to 12 before the Trial Court) of offences punishable under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 of the Penal Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each. Further, each of them was convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

2. In these proceedings, three sets of criminal appeals have been filed by the ten accused [Criminal Appeal Nos. 995-996 of 2011 is by accused Nos. 6, 10, 11 and 12. Criminal Appeal No. 1362 of 2011 is by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 96-97 of 2011 is by accused Nos. 4, 7 and 8]. The original complainant, PW 1 has filed a criminal appeal [Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 2011] primarily against the judgment of the High Court finding the accused guilty under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 instead Section 302. A plea for enhancement of sentence was also made.

3. The genesis of the incident, as it emerges from the evidence, is that Gopalappa and Bachappa (accused No. 5 since deceased) were brothers. They were living separately. Accused No. 1 (Venkatesappa), accused No. 2 (Nagappa), accused No. 3 (Dhanegowda), accused No. 4 (Munishamappa), accused No. 6 (Lakshmana), accused No. 7 (Shekar), and accused No. 8 (Srinivasa) are sons of accused No. 5. Accused No. 10 is the wife of accused No. 2, while accused No. 12 is the wife of accused No. 1. The daughter of accused No. 1, Bhagayamma (accused No. 9) was tried as a juvenile. The family tree of the accused appellants is depicted below:-

A5-Bachappa (D) brother of Gopalappa CW29 (NE)

Venkatesappa A1

Nagappa A2

Dhanegowda A3

Munishamappa A4

Lakshmana A6

Shekar A7

Srinivasa A8

Wife (Munithayamma) A12

1st Wife Lalithamma A10

Daughter (Bhagyamma) A9-Juvenile

2nd Wife (Sumithramma) A11

The family tree on the side of the prosecution witnesses is depicted below for the sake of clarity:

CW29 Gopalappa (Grandfather of PW1) (NE) CW 25 Venkatamma (Grandmother of PW1) (NE)
Krishnappa (D1) (Father of PW1)		Kenchappa (D2)		Govindappa (PW6)		Narayanansamy (PW2)		Anjanappa (PW4)		Sriramappa (PW5)
Wife (Shivamma) (PW13)										Wife (Bhagayamma) (PW7)
Daughter (PW1) Rani

4. Kenchappa and Krishnappa, who died a homicidal death, were the sons of Gopalappa (CW 29). There was a dispute between Gopalappa and his brother Bachappa (accused No. 5) and a civil litigation over several decades had ensued amongst them in regard to their ancestral property. The relationship between the families was strained and they were not on talking terms. A vacant site separates the houses of CW 29 and accused No. 5.

5. On 15 March 1995, at about 8:30am, officials of the Survey Department, including PW 19 visited Nallappanahalli village for a survey of the houses. The survey of the house belonging to accused No. 5 was completed. Between 10 am and 10:30 am, the survey officials came to survey the house of CW 29. At that stage there was a verbal exchange between accuse