The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases of conspiracy and oral dying declarations. The credibility of eyewitness testimony is crucial in reaching a decision.

Judgment

B.N. AGRAWAL, J.- Sixteen accused persons were tried and by f judgment rendered by the trial court all of them were acquitted of the charge under Sections 302 and 149 of the Penal Code (IPC, for short). Against the order of acquittal the State of Karnataka filed an appeal before the High Court, during the pendency of which, Basavara Jappagouda (A-4), who was Respondent 4 in that appeal, died, as such the appeal in relation to him abated.

2. The High Court considered cases of the remaining fifteen accused persons and out of them confirmed the order of acquittal in relation to Mallinathreddy (A-8), Basureddappa (A-10), Channareddy (A-11), Sanna Chennareddy (A-12). So far as the remaining eleven accused persons viz. Mallanna (A-1), Lalesa (A-2), Bhimangouda (A-3), Mahboobsab (A-5), Buddesab (A-6), Khasimsa (A-7), Appasab (A-9), Sharnappa (A-l3), h Bapugouda (A-14), Chandappa (A-15) and Rajashekhar (A-16) are concerned, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted them under Sections 302/149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 10,000 each.

3. Before this Court the aforesaid eleven convicted accused persons preferred appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 2000 challenging their conviction, and during the pendency of the appeal, A-14 (Appellant 9) died, as such his appeal before this Court abated. So far as the State of Karnataka is concerned, it filed an appeal by special leave against the order of the High Court whereby order of acquittal in relation to A-8, A-I 0, A-II and A-12 has been confirmed which gave rise to Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 2006. Thus, in these two appeals cases of only fourteen accused persons are required to be considered.

4. Prosecution case in short was that one Siddanna Patil, who was father of A-I and A-4, was murdered in the year 1983 in which Bhimanagowoda Desai and thirteen other persons were the accused which gave rise to Sessions Case No. 47 of 1984, in which trial proceeded against the other thirteen persons and the same in relation to Bhimanagowoda Desai was separated because he was absconding and numbered as Sessions Case No. 83 of 1988. The aforesaid thirteen persons were convicted by the trial court and their conviction was confirmed by the High Court, against which special leave petition was filed before this Court in which bail was granted and Bhimanagowoda Desai was instrumental in securing release of the aforesaid thirteen persons on bail from this Court. Bhimanagowoda Desai was granted anticipatory bail and thereafter his trial proceeded and the date fixed for hearing of that case was 22-4-1989.

5. One day prior to the aforesaid date i.e. on 21-4-1989 in the afternoon all the sixteen accused persons aforementioned met at the residence of A-11 at Village Hadnoor and 10 the said meeting A-10 stated that as Bhimanagowoda Desai had secured bail of thirteen accused persons from this Court he should be done to death. Shivashranappa (PW 10) went to the house of A-11, who was his neighbours, in the same afternoon at about 3.00 p.m.

with an intention to meet A-10 and saw all the sixteen accused persons in the room and overheard their aforesaid conversation where after the accused persons left the house of A-II. In the same evening one Sangappa (PW 12) visited the house of one Nangouda at Shantinagar in Gulbarga Town where he found that all the sixteen accused persons excepting A-8, A-10, A-11 and A-12 were talking and he heard their conversation in which A-4 was telling other accused persons to finish Bhimanagowoda Desai on the next day i.e. 22-4-1989.

6. Further prosecution case was that on 21-4-.1989 at 9.30 p.m. Bhimanagowoda Desai along with his bodyguard Mallappa (PW 3), Bhimareddy (PW 1), Bhimaraya and Basavraja went to Village Gulbarga for appearing in morning court at Gu1barga on 22-4-1989 in the aforesaid Sessions Case No. 83 of 1988 and stayed that night in the house of his nephew Rudragouda (PW 2). On the next day i.e. on 2