JUDGMENT

The first accused in the Sessions Case No. 217/1994 on the file of Prl. Sessions Judge, Bijapur at Bijapur is the appellant before us.

2. The appellant together with three other accused, who are petitioners in SLP (Crl.) ....Crlmp 4951/2002, were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Hanamant Basappa Byali at about 4.30 p.m. on 4.9.1994 at Sankanal village, Bijapur district. The victim was killed in his fields. The accused were also charged for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for causing hurt to the wife of the deceased and to the brother of the deceased, who is an informant in the case. The accused were also charged under Section 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

3. After trial the accused were acquitted by the Sessions Judge. On an appeal filed by the State, the High Court reversed the verdict of acquittal and convicted the appellant herein under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The other accused were convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. Accused - Buddappa Sabanna was convicted, in addition, for an offence under Section 323 I.P.C.

4. As regards the Special leave petition preferred by the three accused (other than the appellant), learned counsel for the petitioners has stated at the outset that the three accused convicted under Section 324 and Section 323 have already served the period of imprisonment and the counsel made it clear that he is not pressing the special leave petition. Hence, the special leave petition is dismissed as not pressed.

5. Coming to the appeal filed by the appellant, the only point which is seriously urged before us is in regard to the nature of offence, that is to say, whether the appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 302 or for a lesser offence under Section 304 I.P.C. Nevertheless, the broad facts need to be set out briefly. The prosecution case is that the deceased Hanamant Basappa Byali was doing agricultural operations in his fields close to the village along with PW-1 and PW-2, PW-1 being the brother of the deceased. The trouble started when the appellant and the other accused tried to take their bullock cart through the fields of the deceased so as to reach the fields of the first accused. It appears from the evidence on record that the way through the fields of the deceased is a short-cut to reach the lands of the accused and the appellant had been driving his bullock cart through this path since considerable time. On the crucial day, the deceased objected for the cart being taken through his fields especially for the reason that there was crop on the land. On this an altercation ensued. The quarrel went on for some time with abuses hurled against each other. Suddenly the appellant took the axe kept on the cart and hit the deceased- Hanamant on the occipital region which resulted in depressed fracture of the skull bone. The other accused also inflicted injuries with clubs resulting in fracture of the bones of left forearm and a lacerated wound on the outer aspect of the thigh. An injury was also inflicted on PW-1 by the appellant on his left arm. According to the medical evidence, it was a simple injury. PW-1 thereafter ran away from the place. PW-2, an agricultural labourer was observing the incident from some distance. After the attack ended and the deceased fell down, PW-4 the wife of the deceased came to the spot and when she protested she was kicked by the accused Buddappa Sabanna. At that time PW-12 also came to the spot. After some time accused Nos. 2 and 3 took another bullock cart from the village and carried the deceased in that cart and left the cart at the place opposite to the house of PW-6. PW-1 lodged the complaint to the police at about 7.45 p.m. Then inquest and investigation followed, the details of which it is not necessary to state. The blood stained axe was recovered from the appellant pursuant to the disclosure made by him. The postmor