Karnataka High Court
H V Chandrashekara vs State Of Karnataka Reptd By The Psi on 28 May, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2089/2005
BETWEEN:
1. H.V.CHANDRASHEKARA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
S/O.UTHAIAH.
2. SHIVARAYA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O.UTHAIAH.
3. H.V.THAMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
S/O.UTHAIAH.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT,
YADAVARE VILLAGE,
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI A.H.BHAGWAN, ADV. A/W SRI
T.A.KAWMBAIAH, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA ,
REPRESENTED BY THE PSI,
SOMWARPET POLICE STATION,
2
SOMWARPET,
KODAGU DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI G.M.SRINIVASA REDDY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 374(2)
CR.P.C. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DT. 3.11.05 PASSED
BY THE S.J., KODAGU, MADIKERI, IN S.C.NO.14/01 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/SS. 448 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S.307
R/W 34 OF IPC AND SENTENCING THEM TO UNDERGO
R.I. FOR SIX MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.448
OF IPC AND R.I. FOR FIVE YEARS AND TO PAY A FINE
OF RS.2000/- EACH FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.307
R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. I.D., OF PAYMENT OF FINE THEY
ARE ORDERED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR SIX MONTHS.
ALL THE SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT AWARDED
ARE ORDERED TO RUN CONCURRENTLY AND THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT THE ABOVE
ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR DICTATING
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment dated 03.11.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikere in SC No.14/2001 convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 448 3 and 307 r/w Sec 34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 448 of IPC and further sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of `.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 307 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, they are ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with a further direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, PW.3- Shivakumar is the brother of one Meenakshi-PW.8. Shivakumar had gone to the house of Meenakshi on the date of the incident namely on 10.11.1999. PW3 was in the house of PW.8. At about 9.00 p.m. or 9.30 p.m., the appellants came to the house of Meenakshi and sat on the pial/jagali of the house and they started exchange of words regarding transportation of ginger. Thereafter, it is the case of the prosecution that, the 2nd appellant- 4 Shivaraya caught hold of PW.4-Purandhara and 3rd appellant-H.V.Thammaiah caught hold of Suresha, at that time, 1st appellant by name Chandrashekhara assaulted both Purandhara and Suresha with billhook and caused bleeding injuries. At that time, Meenakshi came to interfere and the 1st appellant assaulted Meenakshi also with billhook and caused injury. 1st appellant also further assaulted PW.3-Shivakumar with the same billhook and caused injuries. Thereafter, all the injured persons were shifted to the hospital at Kushalnagar where PW.14-Dr.Sachidananda Murthy examined them and noted the injuries found on their persons.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid information, a case came to be registered in Crime No.232/1999 of Kushalnagar police Station for the offences under Section 448 and 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Thereafter, on the point of jurisdiction, the complaint was transferred to the 5 Somwarpet police Station, whereunder case is again registered in Crime No.291/1999 of the said police station and another FIR was issued to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Thereafter, Somwarpet police continued the investigation and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against all the three appellants for the offences under Section 448 and 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The offences being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the matter was then committed to the Court of Sessions at Madikeri, Kodagu district and the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges for the aforesaid offences against the appellants who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 15 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to 13 and also produced MOs.1 to 8. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, the 6 learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellants and sentenced them as aforestated. It is this order of conviction and sentence which has been challenged by the appellants in this appeal.
5. PW.3-Shivakumar has lodged the complaint before the police station and has stated that he is residing at Katageri Village of Madikeri Taluk. He has a sister by name Meenakshi who was married to one M.K.Thimmaiah of Yadavanadu village of Somwarpet Taluk and she is residing along with her family in the said village by carrying on agricultural work. Meenakshi has got three sons. On 10.11.1999, he had gone from his house to the house of his sister and reached at about 2.00 p.m. He was in the house along with his sister at about 9.30 p.m. and he finished his meals and was in the house along with his sister Meenakshi, her husband Thimmaiah and children by name Purandhara and Suresha. At that time, 1st appellant-Chandrashekhara, 7 2nd appellant-Shivaraya and 3rd appellant- H.V.Thammaiah suddenly came and trespassed into the house and started quarreling with the inmates of the house regarding transportation of ginger in a lorry. Thereafter, the quarrel increased between them. Appellant No.2-Shivaraya and Appellant No.3- Thammaiah caught hold of Purandhara and Suresh, at that time, appellant No.1-Chandrashekhar removed sickle hidden inside his shirt. Both appellant No.2- Shivaraya and appellant No.3-Thammaiah told appellant No.1 to kill them by cutting them. At that time, appellant No.1-Chandrashekhar by saying that he will not leave them without murdering, assaulted Purandhara on his head in the front side and also on his face. Appellant No.1 also assaulted Suresh from the same sickle on his right hand and head. At that time, both Meenakshi and himself tried to prevent appellant No.1, but appellant No.1 assaulted Shivakumar (Complainant) on his forehead by means of the same sickle. He also assaulted 8 Meenakshi on the left side of the neck, left hand and left leg. Thereafter, on seeing this, the complainant Shivakumar tried to hide himself being scared of the appellants. The complainant's brother in law-Thimmaiah so also one Praveena and Dinesh came near the scene of occurrence and at that time accused ran away along with the sickle they had. The complainant has further stated in the complaint that, they immediately went to Harangi and thereafter, they went to Somwarpet Police Station and informed the police. The police shifted them in a jeep to the Government hospital at Kushalnagar. It is stated in the complaint that, accused have assaulted them in connection with transportation of ginger and have attempted to kill them. Therefore suitable action was prayed for.
6. PW.1- H.S.Moidu, Head constable was in the Kushanagar police Station in the night of 10/11.11.1999. At about 1.15 a.m. on 11.11.1999 he received an 9 intimation from Kushalnagar Government Hospital as per Ex.P1 and he rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant-Shivakumar. Whereafter, he registered the case in Crime No.232/1999 for the offences punishable under Section 448, 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC. PW.1 handed over the original complaint and FIR to PW.2-Naniah who carried the same from Kushalnagar police station to Somwarpet police Station since the scene of occurrence was within the jurisdiction of Somwarpet Police Station.
7. PW.3- Shivakumar-the complainant and the injured has stated before the Court that, on the date of the incident, all the three accused persons had been to his sister's house and there was an exchange of words with regard to transportation of ginger. At that time, Shivaraya-appellant No.2 held Purandhara and Thimmaiah-appellant No.3 held Suresh and both the appellants told appellant No.1-Chandrashekhar that they 10 have held these persons and told him to kill all of them. Appellant No.1 took out a billhook from inside his shirt and assaulted Purandhara who sustained injuries on his head, near right eye and below the knee joint of the right leg and blood fell on his clothes. PW.3 has further stated in the evidence before the Court that, at the same time, Chandrashekhar-appellant No.1 assaulted with billhook on the right hand wrist of Suresh and also caused the injuries to the backside of his head. Due to the assault, blood fell on the clothes of Suresh also. Simultaneously Chandrashekhar assaulted with the billhook when he tried to pacify the quarrel and he assaulted him also with the billhook on the right forehead, lips, right arm. Due to the said assault, he has lost his front upper jaw teeth and his shirt was also stained with blood. It is in the evidence of PW.3- that, when his sister Meenakshi interfered into the quarrel, the said Chandrashekhar had given a hit with billhook on the left head, left hand and left leg of Meenakshi. Due to assault, her saree was cut 11 into pieces and her hair was also cut and she sustained bleeding injuries. Thereafter, they were removed to the hospital, where the police came and recorded the statement marked as Ex.P2. PW.1 has been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence counsel. It is suggested that, no such incident has happened. However, PW.1 has denied the said suggestion.
8. PW.4-M.T.Purandhara is another injured. In his evidence, he has stated that, Shivaraya held his body and Thimmaiah held Suresh. Both of them told Chandrashekhar to kill them with billhook and Chandrashekhar took out the billhook which he was concealing inside his shirt and assaulted him (PW.4) on his face, nose, head and also beneath right knee joint. PW.4 has also stated regarding appellant No.1 assaulting Suresh with billhook on right wrist and back side head of Suresh. PW.4 has also stated regarding appellant No.1- Chandrashekhar assaulting Meenakshi with billhook to 12 her left neck, left hand and left leg and sustaining injuries by Meenakshi. PW.4 has also stated regarding appellant No.1 assaulting PW.3-Shivakumar with the same billhook on his arm, forehead and also causing injuries on the upper jaw of PW.3. It is further stated that, the teeth was cut and fell down to the ground due to the said assault made by Chandrashekhar-appellant No.1.
9. PW.5-M.T.Suresha is another injured witness. His evidence regarding the incident is also similar to that of PWs.3 and 4.
10. PW.6-L.B.Dinesha is an eye witness to the incident. In his evidence, it is elicited that, when he went to the house of Smt.Meenkashi on the date of the incident, all the three accused persons were present in the house of PW.8-Meenakshi. He has also stated that, Shivaraya-appellant No.2 held Purandhara and appellant No.3-Thammaiah held Suresha and Chandrashekhar- 13 appellant No.1 assaulted him with the billhook. Chandrashekhar also assaulted Meenakshi and Shivakumar. All four of them had sustained injuries on their body.
11. PW.7-Praveen is also another witness who has also testified to the fact that all the three appellants were known to him and that the appellants had assaulted the injured PWs.3, 4, 5 and 8.
12. PW.8-Meenakshi is another injured person who has stated regarding the assault by Chandrashekhar with billhook on all the four persons on the date of the incident and also the overt acts of appellants Nos.2 and 3 for having caught hold of Purandhara-PW.4 and Suresha-PW.5 when appellant No1 assaulted them with the billhook.
13. The above is the eye witnesses account of the injured persons as well as all the eye witnesses insofar as this case is concerned. The other witnesses who are 14 examined are PW.9-Thimmaiah who is the husband of PW.8. He is the signatory for Ex.P4 which is a spot mahazar and he has stated that, all the four persons namely PWs.3, 4, 5 and 8 have suffered injuries and he had removed them to the hospital on the date of the incident.
14. PW.10-Vishwanatha and PW.11-P.M.Viju are the two attesting witnesses of Ex.P6 under which the prosecution has alleged that, on the information of appellant No.1-Chandrashekhar billhook was seized from the residential house of appellant No.1. Both PW.10 and PW.11 have not supported the case of the prosecution insofar as the recovery is concerned.
15. PW.12-K.M.Muthappa is the attester to Exs.P5 and 6-seizure mahazars seizing the clothes of the injured persons.
15
16. PW.13-Basappa is another witness attesting Ex.P4 under which MOs.6 and 7 and blood stained mud and one teeth which was fallen and also the hair of PW.8 was seized by the police from the scene of occurrence.
17. PW.14-Dr.Sachindananda Murthy has testified to the fact that, he has examined PW.3- Shivakumar and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P7, PW.4-Purandhara and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P8, PW.8-Meenakshi and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P9 and PW.5-Suresha and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P10. It is opined by PW.14 that injuries sustained by PW.3-Shivakumar as per Ex.P7 are grievous in nature, whereas the injuries sustained by PW.8-Meenakshi was simple in nature and so also the injuries sustained by Suresha on his right wrist is grievous in nature. PW.14 has opined that, the weapon MO.1 can cause injuries as mentioned in Exs.P.7 to 10. 16
18. PW.15-C.B.Laxmana is the Investigating Officer. He has conducted investigation in this case and has submitted charge sheet against accused as per Ex.P13.
19. The above is the gist of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, based on which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused.
20. Heard Sri.A.H.Bhagawan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.G.M.Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP for the State/respondent.
21. Learned Counsel for the appellants drew my attention to the evidence and the cross-examination of all the eye witnesses in which it is stated that, some of the eye witnesses have not seen appellant Nos.2 and 3 at the scene of occurrence holding the injured persons. Therefore, he submits that, from the evidence of these witnesses, it is clear that, the appellant Nos.2 and 3 have 17 never participated in the crime and that there is no cogent and clear evidence so far as their participation in the crime is concerned. Therefore, he submits that, they may be acquitted of the offences charged against them. He further submits that, the prosecution case is that, appellant No.1 brought the sickle hidden in his shirt and that after altercation between PW.8 and her family members, appellant No.1 removed the sickle-MO.1 from inside his shirt and assaulted the injured. It is therefore obvious that, appellant Nos.2 and 3 were not aware of the presence of sickle in the person of appellant No.1 and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge could not have convicted appellant Nos.2 and 3 for either of the offences under Section 307 IPC or under Section 448 of IPC. It is also his submission that, the prosecution case is that, all the three appellants had come to the house of PW.8 to discuss about the verbal exchange of words that took place in connection with transportation of ginger three days prior to the date of the incident. Therefore, the 18 prosecution has not established that the intention of the appellants was to commit murder of the deceased or to cause harm to the life of the injured persons. On the narration of the incident by all the eye witnesses, it is clear that after little time of verbal quarrel between the appellants and the injured, appellant No.1 removed sickle hidden inside his shirt and suddenly assaulted the injured persons. Therefore, no intention can be attributed to the appellants either for the offences of attempting to commit the murder or any other offences and the incident has happened in the spur of a moment without any pre-mediation and therefore, the appellants are entitled for an order of acquittal. It is further submitted by him that, the prosecution is silent regarding the previous incident about which no witnesses have been examined wherein there was alleged verbal exchange of words regarding transportation of ginger and the appellant No.1 came to the house of PW.8 only to discuss about the previous exchange of words. Under the 19 circumstances, no motive to cause injury is established by the prosecution and hence, it is submitted by him that, the appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal by giving them benefit of doubt. It is further submitted by him that, the appeal may be allowed and the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants may be set aside.
22. Sri.G.M.Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP on the other hand submits that, apart from four injured persons, there are two more witnesses who have spoken regarding the incident namely PW.6-Dinesh and PW.7- Praveen who have no animus against the appellants at all. Both PWs.6 and 7 have spoken regarding the presence of all the accused persons at the scene of occurrence and also the injuries caused on the injured- PWs.3 to 5 and 8. Under the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted them and therefore, he submits that appeal may be dismissed. It is further 20 submitted by him that, it is also in the evidence of the eye witnesses that the appellant No.1 has taken weapon with him when he went to the house of PW.8 and the same weapon which was used in the commission of the offence, has been seized from the house of appellant No.1. It clearly establishes that, there was an intention on the part of the accused to assault the injured persons. Hence, he submits that, the appeal may be dismissed.
23. I have gone through the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses meticulously insofar as eye witnesses account is concerned. It is seen that the incident has arisen due to the previous exchange of words which happened three days prior to the present incident. The said altercation was in respect of transportation of ginger in a lorry. Unfortunately, the prosecution has not brought out any evidence on record to explain as to what was the real dispute in connection with, which the present incident has occurred. The 21 prosecution is silent as to in between whom the verbal altercation took place or whether the same has taken place at all and how the same was diffused. It is also seen that no complaint has been filed in respect of the said incident. The prosecution has also not come forward with any explanation as to whether any panchayath was held to pacify the previous verbal altercation. The prosecution witnesses particularly the injured witnesses also do not give a clear picture as to what happened in the previous night, which is the cause for the present incident. Therefore, the motive for the present incident is not clearly established by the prosecution. Therefore, one has to look into the eye witnesses account of the incident itself to come to the conclusion as to, whether the accused are guilty of the charges leveled against them.
24. It is in the evidence of all the injured witnesses that, accused had come to the house of PW.8 to discuss about the previous incident of transportation 22 of ginger. It is their case that, appellants had come and sat on the pial of the house and there was discussion between the injured and the appellants. It is further stated in the complaint that, after some time the discussion grew between them and thereafter, it is alleged that, appellant No.1 has removed sickle while appellants Nos.2 and 3 held Purandhara and Suresha. Thereafter, appellant No.1 had assaulted on them. Therefore from this averment in the complaint, it is clear that, the incident has occurred in the spur of a moment and at the time of exchange of some heated words between them without any preparation for the same.
25. However, learned HCGP submits that, since it was at about 9.30 p.m., there was no need for the 1st appellant to carry a sickle hidden under his shirt which indicate that 1st appellant had definitely came with an intention to cause harm. However, it is seen that, the appellants are agriculturist and that carrying a weapon 23 of daily use like sickle in the night time is a common feature in villages. People carry the arms like stick or sickle for protecting themselves against the wild animals in the night and the fact that appellant No.1 had hidden the sickle inside his shirt indicates that he did not want to provoke into or to show that he had come for settling some grievances.
26. Under the circumstances, I am of the clear opinion that, the intention to cause harm on the part of the appellants has not been clearly brought out by the prosecution. Therefore, the ingredients for the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out in this case. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, the appellants are entitled for an order of acquittal for the offence under Section 307 of IPC.
27. However, so far as the incident is concerned, from the evidence of four injured witnesses and also from the evidences of PWs.6 and 7, it is clear that, the 24 appellants have caused injuries to the four persons, in which two of them have suffered grievous injuries and two of them suffered simple injuries. In the cross- examination of the eye witnesses as well as the injured witnesses, nothing has been brought out to show as to why these witnesses should have deposed falsely against the appellants. The version of PWs.3 to 5 and 8 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.6 and 7 and is further confirmed by the evidence of PW.14- Dr.Sachidananda Murthy who has testified that, all the four injured have suffered injuries. The history given by PW.14 and noted by him in the accident register at about 1.00 a.m. on 11.11.2009 also corroborates the fact that PWs.3 to 5 and 8 were assaulted by the appellants. Though in the wound certificate of Shivakumar-PW.3, name of appellant No.1 is written as Prakash, in the wound certificate of Purandhara, name of appellant No.1 is mentioned as Prakash (Chandrashekara) along with other two appellants. Similarly, in the wound certificate 25 of Meenakshi and Suresh, name of Chandrashekhar- appellant No.1 has been clearly mentioned and those names have been given to the doctor by them at about 12.45 a.m. to 1.00 a.m on the night of 11.11.1999. The said content of the accident register clearly indicates that the appellants have caused injuries on the person of the injured on the night of 11.11.1999.
28. Sri.A.H.Bhagawan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that, appellant Nos.2 and 3 have been falsely implicated in this case and their presence are not at all there at the time of the incident. However, the wound certificates give clear indication that their names have also been clearly mentioned in the said accident register by PW.14 almost immediately after the incident. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, unless any further materials are found in the evidence of the witnesses, the contents of the wound certificate also corroborates the evidence of PWs.3 to 5 and 8 and 26 further the evidence of PW.5 and 6 have also corroborated the presence of the appellants at the scene of offence.
29. Under the circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has proved that, on the night of 11.11.1999, the appellants have caused injuries on PWs.3 to 5 and 8 with MO.1-sickle.
30. Now it is has to be determined as to, what is the nature of the offences committed by the appellants. It is in the evidence of PW.14 that, PW.3 has suffered grievous injuries namely two upper incisor was fallen. The said fact has been mentioned in Ex.P7. Similarly, PW.14 has further stated that, PW.5-Suresh has also suffered fracture of right wrist with fracture of ulnar styloid process, which is a grievous injury, whereas, Purandhara and Meenakshi have suffered simple injuries.
27
31. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that, having regard to the fact that the appellants have used the sickle, which is a lethal weapon, the prosecution has proved that the accused have committed an offence under Section 326 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
32. So far as the offence under Section 448 of IPC is concerned, it is seen that the appellants and the injured are neighbours and that originally they had come to discuss with the injured and that they had sat on the pial of the house of PW.8. In the village scenario, the villagers come, stand and sit on the pial of the house. Accordingly, the appellants have also entered into the house for a friendly discussion to sort out the previous incident between them and it cannot be said that the appellants have criminally trespassed within the meaning of Section 448 of IPC. Though in some of the rulings, it is held that the pial also includes the house, it is not clearly established that, the appellants have entered the house 28 against the will of the occupants and therefore, the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC is misconceived. Therefore, they are entitled for an order of acquittal under Section 448 of IPC also.
33. Heard Sri.A.H.Bhagawan, learned counsel for the appellants insofar as the sentence is concerned. The learned counsel submits that, the appellants are all the villagers and that it is only appellant No.1. who has brought the sickle hidden in his shirt and that both appellant Nos.2 and 3 were unaware of the same. Though appellant Nos.2 and 3 have instigated accused No.1 to assault the injured and therefore appellant No.1 removed sickle hidden inside his shirt, the act of appellant Nos.2 and 3 is different from the act of appellant No.1 who has carried the sickle and assaulted all the four persons. Hence, he submits that, due consideration may be made so far as the sentence is concerned.
29
34. Learned HCGP on the other hand submits that, appellants have caused grievous injuries to PWs.3 and 5 and they deserve to be punished severely since the offence under Section 326 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The learned HCGP further submits that, appellants were in custody for about one month during the initial stage.
35. It is seen that, no other incident is reported against the appellants and that they are the first offenders. It is further seen that the incident has happened on 10.11.1999. More than 13 years have lapsed from the date of the incident. Though there are rulings which indicate that, for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, minimum sentence of two years have to be imposed, having regard to the fact that, the incident has happened between two villagers and a considerable length of time has lapsed and that there is also a 30 possibility of patching up between two families, I am of the considered opinion that, sending the appellants to jail would not serve the purpose. However, the injured are required to be compensated suitably. The Courts below are advised to make use of the provisions of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. in all the criminal cases so as to render justice to the victims.
36. Keeping these facts in my mind, I am of the view that, the following order be passed in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the following order is made:
ORDER
i) The appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed.
ii) The order of conviction and sentence for the offences under Section 307 and 448 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the appellants are hereby set aside. In its place, the appellants are convicted for the 31 offence under Section 326 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
iii) Appellant No.1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone and to pay fine of `.25,000/-, in default to suffer S.I for 6 months.
iv) Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are also sentenced to undergo the imprisonment for the period already undergone and to pay fine of `.5,000/- each in default to undergo S.I for 2 months.
v) The entire amount of `.35,000/-
recovered from the appellants is directed to be paid as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. to the injured namely PW.3-Shivakumar, PW.4-Purandhara, PW.5-Suresh and PW.8-Meenakshi.
vi) The trial Court is directed to disburse an amount of `.10,000/- each to PWs.3 and 5 and pay a sum of `.7,500/- each to PWs.4 and 8.
32
vii) If fine amount is already deposited, the appellants shall deposit the remaining amount.
viii) The appellants are given one month's time to surrender before the Court and to pay fine amount as ordered by this Court, failing which the trial Court is directed to execute the default sentence.
Sd/-
JUDGE KSR