Point of law: Offence of Murder – modification of sentence - if the judgment of the trial Court is silent with regard to the serving of sentence, then the accused have to suffer the sentence consecutively. It is also well settled proposition of law that even the appellate Court can also modify the sentence and specifically direct to run concurrently.

JUDGMENT :

B.A. PATIL, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 100346/2016 has been preferred by accused No. 8, Criminal Appeal No. 100024/2017 has been preferred by accused No. 17, Criminal Appeal No. 100194/2018 has been preferred by accused No. 2, Criminal Appeal No. 100283/2016 has been preferred by accused Nos. 1, 4 to 7, 9 to 12, 14 to 16 and 18 to 26 challenging the legality and correctness of the conviction and order of sentence passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bellary, in S.C. No. 56/2008 dated 4.8.2016/8.8.2016. Challenging the quantum of sentence, State has also preferred the appeal in Criminal Appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 100127/2017.

2. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. C.V. Nagesh on behalf of all the accused persons along with the counsels appearing for the appellants-accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri. L.S. Sullad for the respondent-State.

3. The brief facts of the case as averred in the complaint are that a galata took place between Lingayath community people and Nayak community people in respect of taking of canal water, a criminal case has been registered, subsequently the persons belonging to Lingayath community were released on bail. Being unsatisfied about their release on bail and because of previous animosity to kill the prominent Lingayath community people, accused persons hatched a plan and conspired in the house of accused No. 12 Doddabasappa and in pursuance of the conspiracy, by constituting an unlawful assembly by holding deadly weapons accused Nos. 1 to 16 came to the house of complainant on 9.11.2007 at about 7.30 p.m. accused Nos. 1 to 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 24 and 26 trespassed into the house of complainant, accused No. 1 Durgappa assaulted Nagaraja Gouda with chopper, accused No. 2 Rama assaulted Nagaraja Gouda with axe, accused No. 3 Parsappa assaulted Nagaraja Gouda with chopper, accused No. 11 Chandra snatched chopper from the hands of accused No. 1 and assaulted Nagaraja Gouda, accused No. 10 Kallappa took the chopper from the hands of accused No. 3 and assaulted Nagaraja Gouda, accused No. 26 Sunkanna assaulted Nagaraja Gouda with cart-peg, accused No. 13 Eranna assaulted Nagaraja Gouda with axe on his head, shoulder, hands, legs and caused grievous injuries. When the complainant Radhamma went to rescue, at that time, accused No. 4 Kaggal Venkatesh and accused No. 11 Chandra assaulted her on both the hands with chopper, they also assaulted on her left leg. As a result of the same her ring finger was injured. It is further alleged that, accused Nos. 1 to 7, 10, 11, 13, 24 and 26 trespassed into the house of Siddaramana Gouda. Accused No. 26 Sunkanna assaulted Siddaramana Gouda with cart-peg, accused No. 7 Ganesha snatched axe from the hands of accused No. 5 and assaulted Siddaramana Gouda, accused No. 7 Jayappa snatched chopper from the hands of accused No. 14 and assaulted Siddaramana Gouda, accused No. 11 Chandra snatched chopper from the hands of accused No. 8 and assaulted Siddaramana Gouda, accused No. 26 and accused No. 4 Kaggal Venkatesha assaulted Siddaramana Gouda on his face, hands, shoulder and other parts of the body. When CW-2 Shivagangamma came for rescue, at that time, accused No. 6 Ganesha assaulted with axe, accused No. 24 Sunkanna assaulted with cart-peg, accused No. 13 Eranna assaulted with axe by snatching the same from the hands of accused No. 7 on both the hands and shoulder. Accused Nos. 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 25 were watching outside to see that others should not come to rescue of the victims and were also instigating the accused to finish of them. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered, thereafter after investigation the charge sheet has been filed.

4. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that though there are no serious overt acts alleged as against all the accused persons, the trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly