The responsibility of the accused for the well-being of the deceased, the admissibility of dying declarations, and the failure of the accused to explain the circumstances of the death were central legal points established in the judgment.

1. Since these two appeals are in respect of the same judgment rendered by the Sessions Court and since common questions of law and facts are involved in these two appeals, in order to avoid repetition of facts and law, they are taken up together to dispose of them cby this common judgment.

2. Criminal Appeal No.2884/2010 is preferred by the appellant/accused No.1 and Criminal Appeal No.1343/2010 is preferred by the appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3. Both the appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 7th December 2010 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in S.C. 145/2010 whereby the learned Trial Judge convicted appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 304 II, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also being aggrieved by the sentence imposed by the order dated 9th December 2010. The appellants in both the appeals have challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court on the grounds as mentioned in the respective appeal memorandums.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case, as per Ex.P.1 lodged by P.W.1, the father of the deceased, are that P.W.1 is residing at the address as mentioned in the complaint and is doing agriculture; he is having a daughter by name Shobha Urf Pinki and a son by name Supreet; about four years ago, his son Supreet was admitted to Raibag Mahaveer English Medium School to study; said Supreet was residing in the Hostel of the said school while he was studying; as on the date of the incident, Supreet was studying the second standard; whenever the complainant P.W.1 used to visit his son, Supreet was complaining that all the teachers were giving ill-treatment to him in the hostel, they were beating him and whenever he (Supreet) told them that he was not feeling well, he was not taken to the hospital for treatment, but he was given tablet in the hostel itself and he told his father that he would go along with him (father) and asked to take along with him; however, he (complainant) left his son to study in the said school; on 28.12.2009, he and his wife Sannathi went to hostel to see Supreet and even at that time, Supreet complained that the teachers namely Uma teacher (accused No.2) and Parvathi teacher (accused NO.3) and other teachers were assaulting him and also that there was no proper arrangement in the hostel and he told that he would come to the house; then, he and his wife told Supreet that he has to compete the education of that year and from the next year he will be admitted to another school. On 31.12.2009, the complainant had been to jatra (fair) at Badami and stayed there. On 01.01.2010, at about 9.45 a.m., one Sanjay Laxman Nemannavar phoned the complainant informing him that something has happened to Supreet and is serious and asked the complainant to come immediately. Complainant came to Raibag and then he went to the Naik Hospital and saw Supreet lying dead and blood oozing from his nostrils and mouth, the toes of the left leg of Supreet were muddy and there were abrasion injuries. When P.W1 enquired with the doctor as to what happened to his son, the doctor told that people from Mahaveer School had brought the boy at 7.00 a.m. on that day and when he saw the said boy, he was already dead, and thereafter, those people left the dead body of the said boy and went away from the hospital. The complainant also stated in the complaint that his son Supreet was aged 9 years and died because something happened to him, however, he has suspicion on the teachers and the persons working in the hostel and also suspicion with regard to the death of his son and requested the police that action has to be taken in that regard. On the basis of the said complaint-Ex.P.1, firstly, a UDR case was registered in UDR 1/2010 under Section 174(3) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on 08.01.2010, P.W.1 filed anoth