Patel Ganapathi and Others vs Holeyappa and Others

Budihal R.B., J—This appeal is preferred by appellants-complainant P.W.1 and injured P.W.4 against the accused persons being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.4.2010 passed by the I Fast Track Court at Shimoga in S.C. No. 148/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 325, 326, 506, read with section 34 of IPC.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that complainant one Ganapathi lodged the complaint as per Ex. P.1 stating that on 6.6.2006 at 7.30 p.m., accused Nos. 1 to 4 came nearby the house of Eshwarappa, the uncle of the complainant and told that the complainant''s father gave complaint against them in connection with land dispute Sy. Nos. 78 and 79 of Dugur Village and abused the complainant in filthy language. Accused No. 1 Holeyappa assaulted the complainant on his head with kandali (chopper) and caused bleeding injury. Accused No. 2 Chandrappa assaulted the complainant on the left foot with club and caused the injury. Hearing the galata, Somappa (P.W.4), the father of the complainant came to pacify the quarrel. The accused abused him also in filthy language and Siddappa @ Sidramappa (accused No. 3) assaulted father of the complainant on his head with club and caused the bleeding injuries. Accused No. 4 Jagadeesha also assaulted with club. One Fakirappa, Ramappa, Kouti Manjappa and Rudrappa came and pacified the quarrel. The accused threw the chopper, clubs at the spot and went away posing life threat to the complainant and his father. Rudrappa, son of Eswarappa shifted the complainant and his father to Government hospital at Sorab and thereafter, Eswarappa, the uncle of the complainant shifted Somappa to the Government hospital at Sagar. Hence, the complainant requested to take legal action against the accused persons.

On the basis of the said complaint Ex. P.1, case was registered in Sorab P.S. crime No. 77/2006 against accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under sections 504, 324, 506 read with section 34 of IPC and FIR was issued as per Ex. P.9. The investigating officer after completing investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 326, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. As the accused persons not pleaded guilty, charge was framed against them for the said offences. During the course of trial, prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses as P.W.1 to 13 and got marked the documents Exs. P.1 to P. 10 and the material objects M.Os.1 to 4. On the side of defence, no witnesses were examined and no documents were got marked.

We have heard the arguments of learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 4 and learned SPP for R-5.

Learned Counsel for the appellants, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the dispute between the parties is in respect of Sy. Nos. 78 and 79 of Dugur village. He submitted that when there was a partition in the family of the accused, certain properties were given to the share of Gamappa, who subsequently died unmarried. It is also his submission that it is the complainant, his father Somappa and other family members of the complainant were cultivating the land of Gamappa, and katha and pahani also stand in their name. The accused were claiming share in the lands of Gamappa and because of that reason, they were making galata with the complainant and his family members. He submitted that even on the date of incident also, when the complainant Ganapathi had been to his uncle''s house, accused Nos. 1 to 4 came to the house of Eshwarappa i.e. the uncle of complainant Ganapathi and picked up quarrel with Ganapathi and assaulted him. When Somappa, who is the father of Ganapathi, came to the said place, he was also assaulted severely on the head portion and fracture injuries were caused to Somappa. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that in that connection, the counter case was registered against the accused by Soraba Police in crime No. 78/2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Hence, he submitted that it is the accused in this case who are the aggressors and who are the persons responsible for the initiation of the incident and not the complainant and his father and other family members. It is also his submission that it is the accused who assaulted the complainant, his father and other family members and caused the injuries. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument and appreciation of the case that the complainant, his father Somappa and other family members, caused any injuries to accused persons, it is not intentional and deliberate and it is only in exercise of their right of private defence and hence, it is the accused persons who committed the offence as against the complainant and his father. The learned counsel submitted that the trial Court has wrongly read the evidence and wrongly proceeded in the matter to acquit the accused persons. He made submission that the judgment of the trial Court is not in accordance with the evidence placed on record both oral and documentary, and hence submitted to allow the appeal and to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal and to convict the accused for the offences for which they were charged.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 during the course of his arguments made the submission that the Trial Court has properly assessed the evidence on record and as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not consistent and not worth believable, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused persons. It is also his submission that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court and therefore no grounds for this court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal and submitted to dismiss the appeal.

The learned SPP Sri Nawaz during the course of his arguments has submitted on behalf of the State i.e., Respondent No. 5, that the prosecution witnesses in this case have suppressed the fact of Somappa and Ganapathi sustaining the injuries in the said incident. Hence, it is his submission that when the presence of the accused of this case is admitted at the spot, as there was a case and counter case, the Trial Court ought to have considered these aspects while passing the judgment. Therefore, he submitted that the materials placed on record i.e., both oral and documentary show the participation of the accused persons in the said incident. Hence, submitted to take these aspects into consideration and to pass appropriate judgment in the case.

We have perused the materials placed on record both oral and documentary. The witnesses examined on the side of the State before the trial Court are P.W.1-Ganapathi, who is the complainant and injured witness, who deposed about lodging of complaint as per Ex. P-1 and his signature as per Ex. P-1(a). PW-2-Phakeerappa is the relative of Patel Eshwarappa and the complainant; but he turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-3-Patel Eshwarappa is the uncle of accused persons, who shifted the injured to Sagar Hospital and thereafter to Soraba Hospital. PW-4-Patel Somappa is the injured witness, who deposed about the assault made by the accused on himself, complainant No. 1-Ganapathi and other witnesses. He has also identified M.O.1-Sword and M.Os.2 to 4-Clubs. PW-5-Kouthi Manjappa, who is having his house nearby the spot, but he has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. PW-6/Rudrappa is the relative of the accused so also the injured, who has deposed in his evidence about the accused assaulting PW-1-Ganapathi, the witness Somappa and other prosecution witnesses with the sword and clubs; he has identified materials objects M.Os.1 to 4. PW-7-Shrivalada Ramappa, who is also the native of Dugur village, has deposed that about three years back Police came to the bus stand and obtained his signature on the mahazar Ex. P-4; he turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-8 Papanna, who is the native of Bargi village, deposed that about three years back Police came nearby the house of Eshwarappa at Dugur and one Phakeerappa has also came along with them. Police have shown three clubs to him, Phakeerappa shown the spot and Police have conducted the mahazar in respect of the three clubs; he has also signed said mahazar/Ex.P-2 as per P-2(c). PW-9 Neelakantappa has deposed in his evidence that about three years back he went to Dugur village, from there, he was called to Soraba Police Station; Kouthi Manjappa gave one sword in the Police Station stating that Chandrappa assaulted with the said sword and Police have conducted the mahazar as per Ex. P-4 and P-4(c) is his signature. PW-10 Dr. K.R. Prakash, who examined Somappa, the injured, and issued injury certificate as per Ex. P-7. PW-11 M.R. Balakrishna, who is the Police Constable at Soraba Police Station, has deposed that on 6.6.2006 he was the SHO of the Police Station; he received one memo from Govt. Hospital Soraba. Then, he went to hospital and recorded the statement of Ganapathi, the injured, as per Ex. P-1 and his signature is P-1(b); on the basis of that, he registered the case and then sent the FIR to the Court as per Ex. P-9. PW-12 H.M. Jagannatha, who is the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. PW-13 is the doctor, who examined complainant-Ganapathi and issued the wound certificate as per Ex. P-10 and P-10(b) is her signature.

It is the submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellants/complainant and injured i.e., PWs-1 and 4 that there was a counter case against the accused in S.C No. 150/2007 and the connected Criminal Appeal before this Court in Crl.A. No. 529/2010. PW-1 Complainant-Ganapathi, in the case on hand, was the accused No. 2 in the counter case registered in Soraba P.S. in crime No. 78/2006. P.W.1-complainant, Ganapati and PW-4 Somappa, the injured in this case, are the accused along with three other persons in the connected case.

We have perused the materials placed on record. Ex. P.9 is the FIR marked in this case, the date of incident in the said case is shown as 6.6.2006 at 19.30 hours. We have also perused the FIR in the connected appeal i.e., in Crl.A. No. 529/2010, wherein FIR was marked as per Ex. P.8 and the date of incident is shown as 6.6.2006 and the time is mentioned as 20.00 hours. We have also perused the evidence of P.W.8 H.N. Jagannatha, the Investigating Officer, in the connected Crl.A. No. 529/2010. During the course of cross examination, he deposed and admitted as true that crime Nos. 78/2006 and 77/2006 are case and counter case. He has also admitted that in crime No. 77/2006 also he is the investigating officer. He further admitted that both the incidents took place in between the house of Sridhar and Patel Eshwarappa as mentioned in panchanamas. Therefore, looking to these materials on record so also the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in both appeals, we are of the clear opinion that they are the case and counter cases.

The injured in this case are P.W.1 Ganapathi and P.W.4 Somappa, who are also the accused persons in the connected case.

PW-1 Ganapathi, who is the complainant, has deposed in his evidence in examination-in-chief that on 06.06.2006 at about 7.30 p.m he went to his uncle Eshwarappa''s house to inform that they have given the complaint against the sons'' of his uncle i.e., the accused persons. From the house of his uncle, the house of the accused is at a distance of 200-300 meter. The accused persons came nearby the house of Eshwarappa, the uncle of the complainant; firstly, Holiyappa-accused No. 1 asked the complainant that why they have given the complaint and told that they will commit his murder, stating so Holiyappa-accused No. 1 assaulted on his head with sword, accused No. 2-Chandrappa assaulted him on the left foot with club. When his father came to rescue, accused No. 3-Siddaramappa assaulted on his head with club; then, accused Chandrappa, Holiyappa, and Jagadeesha also assaulted his father. Accused No. 4-Jagadeesha assaulted all over the body of his father with club. Then, Phakeerappa, Kouthi Manjappa and Shirvalada Ramappa came and pacified the quarrel; then they were taken to the hospital. Soraba Police came to the Government Hospital in the midnight at 12.00 and recorded his statement as per Ex. P-1 and P-1(a) is his signature. He has identified M.O.1-Sword and M.Os.2 to 4-the clubs.

In the cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted as true that in the said Court there is a counter case pending against them. He has also admitted as true that he along with Rudrappa, Somappa, Kariyappa and Manjappa assaulted Chandrappa on his leg and assaulted Holiyappa on his head and caused the bleeding injuries and they gave the complaint in that regard. Accused No. 2-Chandrappa was holding M.O.2-club, accused No. 3-Siddaramappa was holding M.O.3, accused No. 1-Holiyappa was holding M.O.1-sword and accused No. 4-Jagadeesha was holding MO.4. His father came to the spot within 10 minutes, he was having consciousness till the arrival of his father; accused No. 3-Siddaramappa assaulted his father on his head with club. He denied the suggestion that at 7.30 p.m. he has neither gone to his uncle''s house nor the accused came there and assaulted his father and he is giving false evidence.

PW-2-Phakeerappa deposed in his evidence in the examination-in-chief that he know the accused persons present before the Court, who are also his relatives. PW-1-Ganapathi, PW-4-Somappa are also his relatives; but he does not know about the incident as he went to the spot after the incident had occurred. But on the next day of the incident Police called him to the spot and asked him to sign on the mahazar Ex. P-2 and he signed as per P-2(a). He has seen three clubs MOs.2 to 4, which the Police put into the jeep. He turned hostile.

When cross-examined by the PP nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW-2 to believe that he is the eye-witness to the incident.

PW-3-Patel Eshwarappa has deposed in his evidence that accused are his nephews. Patel Somappa-PW-4 is his elder brother and Patel Ganapathi-PW-1 is the son of his elder brother. He deposed that when he was not in the house his elder brother and elder brother''s son were assaulted with club and sword. However, he identified M.O.1-sword and MOs.2 to 4-clubs.

In the cross-examination by the counsel for the accused, PW-3 has deposed that he came to the spot after 10-15 minutes after the incident had occurred. On that day he had been to Ulavi and his brother Somappa told about the incident. So, this itself shows that he is a hear-say witness.

PW-4-Patel Somappa has deposed in his evidence that all the accused persons are the sons of his elder brother Krishnappa. His father and elder brother have already divided the properties and gave to them. Accused damaged the crops claiming that they are having the share in the said land and in that connection, they have given the complaint but the Police informed him that as it is the civil matter they have to go to the Court. On the day of the incident accused No. 3-Siddaramappa assaulted him with club on his head and accused No. 4- Jagadeesha assaulted on his head with club. Accused No. 1-Holiyappa assaulted his son Ganapathi with sword on the left side of the head and accused No. 2-Chandrappa assaulted on the left foot with club; by saying that they will finish off them, they went away. Women folk have witnessed the incident. He was taken to Sagar Hospital and then he was shifted to Soraba Hospital. He identified M.O.1-Sword used by Holiyappa and also identified MOs.2 to 4-clubs used by other accused.

In his cross examination he has admitted that he is also an accused person in case of assault on Chandrappa and Holeyappa. He deposed that himself and Eshwarappa are jointly cultivating the land of Gamappa. On the date of incident, his son Ganapathi P.W.1 went to the house of Eshwarappa and 15 minutes thereafter, when he went to the house of Eshwarappa, his son Ganapathi was sitting on the jagali (katta) of the house. All the four accused also came to the house of Eshwarappa and he was also sitting in the house of Eshwarappa. The accused made galata and then he himself went and opened the door. He was dragged outside and accused Jagadeesha and Sidrammappa assaulted him on his head and thereafter, they assaulted his son Ganapathi. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely that accused came and assaulted himself and his son Ganapathi. He admitted as true that after the discharge of Ganapathi from hospital, they gave M.Os.1 to 4 to the police.

P.W.5 Kouti Manjappa deposed in his evidence that on the date of incident, he was not in the village and he came to the village after three days. However, he identified his signature P.2(b) on Ex. P.2 panchanama. And deposed that he was asked to put his signature in connection with galata took place near the house of Eshwarappa and police have not at all seized any object from the said place. He identified his signature as P.4(a) on Ex. P.4. As he turned hostile, prosecution treated him hostile. During cross examination by Public Prosecutor nothing has been elicited from his mouth to believe the story of the prosecution that he acted as panch witness to mahazar Exs. P.2 and P.4.

P.W.6 Rudrappa deposed in his evidence that accused and Ganapathi and his father Somappa are his relatives. On 6.6.2006, Somappa lodged the complaint before the police. Coming to know about the same, the accused came nearby his house and abused Somappa with filthy language and when Somappa came out of the house, accused Nos. 3 and 4 assaulted Somappa with clubs on his head and accused No. 1 Holeyappa assaulted P.W.1 Ganapathi on his head with sword and accused Chandrappa assaulted on the left foot. Then he pacified the quarrel and took Ganapathi to the government hospital at Sorab. His father took Somappa to Sagar hospital. He identified M.OS.1 to 4. In the cross examination he deposed, police have recorded his statement and he has stated before the police that he was not present at the time of incident and when he came, then he know about the incident. Therefore, this witness is a hearsay witness.

P.W.7 Shirvalad Ramappa deposed in his evidence that about three years back, when he was in the bus stand at Dugur village, police came and asked him to put his signature on the mahazar Ex. p.4 and accordingly he signed as per P.4(b). P.W.5 Manjappa has not produced sword before the police in his presence and he does not know about the galata. So this witness also turned hostile and when cross examined, nothing has been elicited from his mouth that he has witnessed the incident or Ex. P.4 mahazar was conducted in his presence or any of the articles were seized in his presence.

P.W.8 Papanna deposed in his evidence that about three years back, police came to Dugur village nearby the house of Eshwarappa One pakirappa was also present there. Pakirappa shown the spot and police have shown three clubs and they conducted the mahazar at 3.00 p.m. and he signed the said mahazar Ex. P.2 and his signature is P.2(c) and M.Os.2 to 4 are the clubs seized by the police.

In the cross examination he deposed that he is the native of Gargi. One Nagaraj took him to Dugur village on the next day of the incident at 3.00p.m. police came there. By the time, they went there, the writing was completed and he signed the said mahazar. he does not know the contents of the said mahazar. Pakirappa brought and produced the clubs which were in the fence.

P.W.9 Nilkantappa deposed in his evidence that about three years back, one month after the incident, he went to Dugur village and he was called to Soraba police station and Pakirappa produced the sword before police and he again deposed that Kouti Manjappa produced the sword stating that Chandrappa assaulted with the sword. The police have conducted the mahazar as per Ex. P.4 and his signature is P.4(c). it was 11.00 a.m. when the mahazar was written. Manjappa and Ramappa have also signed Ex. P.4. M.o.1 is the sword.

In the cross examination he deposed that Keriyappa is his relative and he is also attending to the court. There is also a case against Keriyappa on the allegation that he assaulted Holeyappa and Chandrappa. He denied the suggestion that he is falsely deposing that Manjappa gave sword to police and police have conducted mahazar and obtained his signature.

P.W.10 Dr. K.R. Prakash, deposed in his evidence in the examination in chief that on 6.6.2006 at 9.00 p.m., one Ramappa bought P.W.4 Somappa stating that he sustained injuries in the galata. When he examined, he noticed the injuries on the left side of the head. There was fracture injury on the head. The said injured was admitted as inpatient for seven days and he issued wound certificate as per ex.p.7 and P.7(a) is his signature. If a person is assaulted with club, such type of injuries can be caused. He has seen M.Os.3 and 4 clubs.

In the cross examination, he deposed that there was fracture injury on the skull. If a person was running because of galata and if came into contact with door edge, the injury he has mentioned can be caused. He admitted as true that on 6.6.2006, he gave treatment to one Chandrappa and Holeyappa at Sagar hospital. The leg of Chandrappa was cut and there was bleeding. The said person is present before court as accused No. 2. Injury certificate is issued as per Ex. P.4 in respect of Chandrappa in S.C No. 150/2008. He denied the suggestion that Somappa P.W.4 had not at all come to Sagar hospital and there were no injuries on his head and at the instance of Somappa and Ganapathi, he issued false injury certificate.

In his further evidence he has deposed that Somappa sustained two injuries on the left side of the head and the second injury sustained by him is grievous in nature. In his further cross-examination, he has deposed that though it is stated that Somappa was assaulted at 6.00 p.m. by Chandrappa and others, but he has not specifically named such persons. It is stated that it is not a complex fracture and whatever he has stated earlier is true.

P.W.11 M.R. Balakrishna in his evidence has deposed that he is working as Head Constable and on 6.6.2006 during night when he was the S.H.O., he received one Memo from Govt. hospital, Soraba. Immediately he visited the hospital and saw the injured Gangapathi and recorded his statement as per Ex. P1 and Ex. P1b is his signature. Then after coming back to the police station, he registered the case and issued the FIR to the Court and also sent the copies to his higher officer. The FIR is at Ex. P9. HMR is at Ex. P8. In the cross-examination he has deposed that in Ex. P1 it is mentioned by Ganapthi that the accused have thrown the sword and clubs at the said place and went away and said portion is marked as Ex. D1. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely that he went to hospital and recorded the statement of Ganapathi as per Ex. P1.

P.W.12 H.M. Jagannath is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has deposed in detail in his examination-in-chief about the investigation that he has conducted. After concluding the investigation he filed the charge sheet before the Court. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he has not recorded the statement of witnesses and not visited the spot nor drawn the spot mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses. He has also denied the suggestion that he has not seized the clubs used by Somappa and Ganapathi. He admitted as true that in Crime No. 78/2006 he has registered the case against Kariappa, Ganapathi, Rudrappa, Somappa and Manjappa for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. He denied the suggestion that on 19.6.2006 the accused have not at all appeared before the police station and he is falsely deposing that he has recorded the voluntary statement of the accused. He denied further suggestion that he has not seized the Kandli(chopper) in the presence of Ramappa and Neelakantappa with which Ganapathi and Somappa were said to have been assaulted. He denied the suggestion that though his investigation transpires that the accused has not committed any offence even then, at the instance of the complainant he has filed false charge sheet against them.

P.W.13 Dr. Sangeetha deposed in her evidence in the examination-in-chief that on 6.6.2006 Ganapathi, S/o Patel Somappa and Rudrappa Patel brought Ganapathi for treatment with a history that Patel Siddappa, Chandrappa, Jagadeesha and Holeyappa assaulted him. He examined Ganapathi at 10.40 p.m. and the injuries sustained were simple in nature and they were caused within 24 hours prior to his examination. She has issued the injury certificate as per Ex. P10. It is stated by her that if a person is assaulted with an object like M.O.1, injury Nos. 1 and 2 mentioned in Ex. P10 can be caused. If a person is assaulted with clubs M.Os.2 to 4, the 3rd injury as mentioned in Ex. P10 can be caused. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that Ganapathi has not stated before her as to who assaulted him and in Ex. P10 no grievous injury is mentioned. She has admitted that if a person after causing any incident while running falls in a drain or on a sharp edged stone the injuries as mentioned in Ex. P10 may be caused. She has denied the suggestion that she has not examined Ganapathi and has issued false certificate as per Ex. P10.

Perusing the materials on record, the presence of the accused is spoken by the prosecution witnesses more particularly the injured witnesses about which we have already made the reference above. Not only that looking to the counter case, in criminal appeal in 529/2010, three accused in this case i.e., accused NO.1 Holeyappa, Accused No. 2 Chandrappa and Accused No. 3 Jagadeesha are the witnesses in the counter case. The injured in this case i.e., P.W.1 Ganapathi and P.W.4 Somappa are the accused persons in the counter case. Therefore, looking to all these materials on record, they clearly show the presence of accused Nos. 1 to 4 at the spot, when the incident took place. Perusing the materials on record, more particularly the oral evidence of P.W.1 Ganapathi and P.W.4 Somappa and the injury certificate of Somappa it goes to show the presence of the accused at the spot and their participation in the incident so also the assault made by the accused on the complainant, his father Somappa and the other witnesses. Even the doctor''s evidence also supports the case of the prosecution. The doctor in the oral evidence, looking to the weapons used, has also deposed that if a person is assaulted with the clubs like M.Os.2 to 4 the injuries that he has mentioned in the wound certificate of Somappa can be caused. It is no doubt true that during the course of cross examination of the injured witnesses, it was suggested by the defence that if a person after taking part in the incident and while running away came in contact with the frame of the door, the injuries mentioned in the injury certificate can be sustained, the witnesses denied the said suggestion. These aspects were completely ignored by the trial Court. Looking to the judgment of the trial Court in this case, it is held by the trial Court that the accused are the aggressors. The materials also support this opinion of the trial Court because it is an admitted fact even according to the accused persons that Somappa and his sons were in possession of the property of Gamappa after his demise and they are cultivating the said property since 25 years and they are paying kandayam. Katha of the said land also stands in the name of Somappa and his sons. The facts goes to show that when P.W.1 Ganapathi went to the house of his uncle Patel Eshwarappa, at that time, accused came to the said place and assaulted Ganapathi at the first instance and when P.W.4 Somappa came for his rescue, he was also assaulted. The injury certificate in respect of somappa shows that the injury is grievous in nature. Though it is stated that there is fracture in the skull, but perusing the materials, no X-ray has been taken nor any materials in that regard were produced before the Court. Ignoring all these materials on record and observing that the evidence of the injured witnesses P.W1 and 4 are not supported by the independent witnesses, the trial Court has acquitted all the accused of the charges leveled against them. This view taken by the trial Court cannot be the only possible view under the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the judgment and order of acquittal is not sustainable and the same requires interference by this Court.

Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order:

"The appeal is allowed.

(a) The judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.4.2010 passed by the I Fast Track Court in S.C. No. 148/2008 is hereby set aside.

(b) Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with section 34 of IPC and they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(c) Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(d) Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled to benefit of set off of the custody period for which they have already undergone, as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

(e) If the fine amount is realized, Rs. 30,000/- be paid to the witness P.W.4 Somappa by way of compensation as per Section 357 of Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount shall be remitted to the State."