The court established that the accused's actions fell under Exception IV to Section 300 of the IPC, as there was no premeditation or intention to commit murder.

JUDGMENT

K Natarajan, J. - This appeal is preferred by the appellantsaccused Nos.1 and 2 against the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 3-6-2015 passed in Sessions Case No.71 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, sitting at Srirangapatna (hereinafter referred to as trial Court ) for having convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC ). The appellants are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to their status before the trial Court.

3. The case of the prosecution is that Arakere Police registered a case against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC on the complaint filed by P.W.1. It is alleged by the complainant that his father-Madegowda (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) purchased the land, which is adjacent to the land of accused No.1, and planted tomato saplings. Prior to one month of the incident, the land was surveyed and boundary was fixed. On 16-8-2010 at 9:30 a.m., his uncle s son-Jayaramu had been to the land to supply water to the crop, at that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up quarrel and questioned as to why they have planted tomato saplings in their land and they removed the tomato saplings. At that time, the complainant and the deceased came to the land and asked them, why they quarreled with Jayaramu as they have planted tomato saplings only after surveying the land and fixing the boundary. When the deceased tried to replant the tomato saplings, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up quarrel with an intention to murder the deceased, assaulted on his head and other parts of the body with the club and caused bleeding injury, due to which, the deceased lost his conscious. When the complainant came to rescue his father, from the same club, accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted him on his head and he also sustained bleeding injury. Both of them were shifted to the Hospital. Since the deceased had severe head injury, on advise of the Doctor, he was shifted to NIMHANS, Bengaluru. Later, the deceased was shifted back to Mandya District Hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. After intimation to the Police by the Hospital Authorities, the Police have obtained complaint from P.W.1 as per Ex.P.1 and registered a case against the accused. Thereafter, the accused were arrested and sent to judicial custody. After completion of the investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

4. The J.M.F.C. after taking cognizance committed the case to the Sessions Court. The learned trial Judge framed the charges against accused Nos.1 and 2, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it examined twenty witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.20, got marked thirty-six documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.36 and eleven material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.11. During cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, accused Nos.1 and 2 got marked seven documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7. After completion of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statements of the accused as contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded and not lead any defence evidence.

6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Judge found accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment as stated supra. Be