Karnataka High Court
Kempanna Bhimappa Belavi vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2013
Author: H S Kempanna
Bench: H S Kempanna
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.KEMPANNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2560/2011
BETWEEN:
1. KEMPANNA BHIMAPPA BELAVI,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DURADUNDI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELGAUM.
2. SHIVANING KEMPANNA BELAVI,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DURADUNDI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELGAUM. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK.R.KALYANA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT
BENCH PREMISES, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL.SPP)
-2-
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(1) CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION
AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 13/14-1-2011 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK
COURT & ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, HUKKERI SITTING AT
GOKAK IN S.C.NO. 64/2010 & ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS
FROM ALL THE CHARGES.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, B.V.PINTO.J. DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment dated 13.01.2011 passed by the Fast Track and Additional Sessions Judge, Hukkeri sitting at Gokak in SC No.64/2010 convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Sec 34 of IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with a further direction that, a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- shall be payable to PW.9 Shankrevva Koli W/o. deceased Dundappa and PW.1- -3- Lakshmavva Basappa Koli, mother of the deceased Dundappa respectively.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 10.11.2009, at about 1.30 p.m., in Duradundi Village in front of the house of the complainant-Smt.Lakshmavva, accused persons by holding weapons such as sickle, ilige patti, assaulted the deceased Dundappa on the ground that, the deceased Dundappa was having illicit intimacy with Shivaleela who is daughter of first accused Kempanna Bhimappa Belavi and sister of second accused Shivaning Kempanna Belavi by assaulting him with lethal weapons mentioned above and on seeing the same, when Shivaleela went to intervene and extricate Dundappa, accused No.1 is alleged to have assaulted her by means of ilige patti and accused No.2 has assaulted her with a sickle on her neck and also on her head, right shoulder and on her hand and caused her murder, thereby, they are alleged to have committed the offence under Section 302 r/w Sec 34 of IPC. -4-
3. It is further alleged that, at the time accused Nos.1 and 2 committed murder of two deceased persons, accused No.3 was with them and he threatened the prosecution witnesses with dire consequences, not to interfere with the accused and thereby committed the offence under Section 506 r/w Sec 34 of IPC.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the case had examined in all 25 witnesses and got marked Exs.P.1 to 49 and produced Mos.1 to 24. The defence of the accused was one of the total denial. However, by impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the accused Nos.1 and 2/appellants while acquitting accused No.3 of all the charges leveled against him. The convicted accused have filed this appeal.
5. The prosecution case commenced with filing of the complaint by Smt.Lakshmavva Basappa Koli on 10.11.2009 before the Ghataprabha police Station. It is stated in the complaint that, she is residing in Duradundi Village along -5- with her son Dundappa aged about 35 years and her daughter-in-law Smt.Shankrevva and grand children by name Basappa and Mallappa. Her son Dundappa was carrying on the profession of tape recorder repairs. About one year prior to the date of the incident her son Dundappa had started loving the daughter of one Kempanna Bhimppa Belavi of the same village by name Shivaleela and he had taken her to some other place and had kept her for about one or two months. Thereafter, they came back to the village. After she was brought back by her son, her daughter-in-law left the house along with her two children and was residing in her parental house at Badatha Bhavi Village. Shivaleela was residing for about seven months in their house. There was some misunderstanding between the Dundappa and Shivaleela and therefore, Shivaleela had again gone to her maternal uncle's house at Kenchanahatti Village. After some time again, accused No.1-Kempanna Bhimappa Belavi had brought his daughter back to his house and had kept her along with him. On 08.11.2009, in the afternoon, deceased -6- Dundappa had gone to the house of Shivaleela and had brought her and kept her in his house. Since about two days prior to the date of the incident, accused No.1 as well as accused No.2 were telephoning to the house of complainant and asking Dundappa to leave Shivaleela, since Dundappa is having a wife and children and that accused Nos.1 and 2 were proposing to get Shivaleela married to some other person. However, deceased Dundappa did not heed to their request. It is stated in the complaint that, on 10.11.2009, the complainant had gone along with her daughter Neelavva to Shri Singoti for farm work, her son Dunappa and Shivaleela were in the house at about 1.30 p.m. When they returned to their house, accused No.1-Kempanna Bhimmappa Belavi was standing in front of the house. He was holding an iligi patti and his son Shivananing Kempanna Belavi was holding sickle in his hand, accused No.3- Gullappa was present at that time.
-7-
6. It is further stated in the complaint that, Accused No.1 -Kempanna Bhimmappa Belavi told her son Dundappa to leave his daughter Shivaleela, for which the deceased Dundappa started retorting to accused No.1. At that time, people from the neighbourhoood also joined the place by which time, deceased ran away. But he fell down in a cowdung pit. Accused Nos.1 and 2 followed him. Accused No.1 assaulted the deceased Dundappa on his person by means of ilige patti and accused No.2 assaulted him by means of sickle on his body. At that time, deceased Shivaleela also followed them and she tried to extricate the deceased Dundappa from the assault of accused Nos.1 and 2. At that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 saying that she is damaging the reputation of their family, assaulted Shivaleela also by means of a weapons on her neck. At that time, accused No.3, Gullappa threatened other persons saying that, if any person came forward to extricate the deceased, they would also be taught a lesson. Thereafter, all the three accused persons ran away from the spot by holding weapons in their hand. People -8- from the street came near and saw that, both the deceased Dundappa and Shivaleela had sustained grievous injuries on their neck and on other parts of the body and were profusely bleeding. They also observed that, both the persons Dundappa and Shivaleela had died at the spot. Thereafter, the complainant went to Ghataprabha police station and lodged a complaint. The Ghataprabha police on receipt of the said complaint, registered the same in Crime No.315/2009 for the offence under Section 302 r/w Sec 34 of IPC on 10.11.2009 at about 16.00 hours. The said case was registered by PW.21-PSI and he submitted FIR as per Ex.P.34 to the jurisdictional Magistrate and handed over the further investigation of the case to PW.22-C.P.I.
7. It is stated in the evidence of PW.21 that, he along with PW.22 shifted the dead bodies to the Gokak Government hospital after taking photographs of the same. Thereafter, PW.21 conducted inquest panchanama on the dead body of Dundappa as per Ex.P11 in the Government hospital of -9- Gokak. Similarly, the inquest proceedings were also conducted on the dead body of the deceased Shivaleela as per Ex.P.14 on the same day between 7.15 p.m. to 8.15 p.m in the presence of panchas PW.11 and CW.3.
8. On 11.11.2009, between 7.00 a.m. to 8.00 a.m., police conducted panchanama of the scene of occurrence in the presence of PWs.12 and 13 as per Ex.P.17. Mos.15 to 18 were seized from the scene of occurrence. The rough sketch as per Ex.P37 was drawn.
9. On 11.11.2009, PW.20- Balappa Adimani ASI, apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2 and produced them before PW.23-Mohammed Hafiz Desai, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who arrested them and recorded their voluntary statements as per Exs.P.38 and 39 respectively. On the basis of the same, the clothes of accused No.1 at Mos.19 to 21 were seized as per panchanama Ex.P.20. The clothes of accused No.2 were seized as per Ex.P.21. They were marked as Mos.22 to 24. PWs.15 and 16 are the witnesses to the said seizure.
- 10 -
10. On 11.11.2009, Mos.1 and 2 i.e, the weapons used by accused No.1, MO.1 i.e, ilige Patti and MO.2 sickle were seized in the presence of PWs.15 and 16, as per Ex.P.22. Since, accused No.1 had suffered bite mark, he was taken to the hospital for medical examination and the certificate as per Ex.P.41 was secured in respect of the injury caused on person of accused No1. The dead bodies were thereafter subjected to postmortem examination. Ex.P.42 is the PM examination report of Smt.Late Shivaleela and Ex.P.43 is the PM examination report of deceased-Dundappa. The PM report of Shivaleela reveals that, there were severe five cut lacerated wounds on the dead body and the cause of the death was due to the injuries. Similarly, Dundappa was found to have suffered severe 9 cut lacerated wounds. According to the medical officer, cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to severe fatal injuries to brain and spinal cord. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer PW-23 received FSL report at Ex.P.48 and also the opinion of the doctor as
- 11 -
per Ex.P47 and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons after completion of investigation.
11. Out of twenty five witnesses examined by the prosecution, except PWs.1, 2, 9, 11 and PW.14, all other witnesses who were supposed to speak about the incident have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased Dundappa and is the complainant. PW.2 is the sister of deceased. PW.9 -Shankrevva Dundappa Koli is the wife of the deceased Dundappa.
12. PW.1- Laksmavva has deposed in her evidence before the Court regarding the facts leading to filing of the complaint. She has reiterated the version found in the complaint and also stated regarding the actual assault committed by accused Nos.1 and 2 on the deceased. She has specifically stated that, there was altercation between her son and accused Nos.1 and 2 on the date of the incident.
- 12 -
13. It is in her evidence that, accused No.1 was holding ilige patti and accused No.2 was holding a sickle and after extricating himself, deceased Dundappa started to run and at that time, 2nd accused Shivaning Kempanna Belavi followed her son, assaulted on his right leg. The deceased Dundappa fell down in a cow dung pit. At that time, accused No.1 came near the deceased and assaulted him by ilige patti on his neck. As soon as her son fell down, both accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted her son. At that time, deceased Shivaleela came and asked the accused, as to why they are assaulting her husband and tried to extricate her husband from accused Nos. 1 and 2. At that time, stating that this Shivaleela would give evidence tomorrow before the Court, both accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted her on her neck and caused bleeding injuries on her neck and on her face. When the complainant wanted to separate them, accused No.2 informed her that he will not leave her also and showed his sickle. Thereafter, all the three accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Both her son and Shivaleela had fallen in the cow dung pit and had died.
- 13 -
Clothes of both of them were stained with blood and that the land was also stained with blood. Thereafter, she went to Ghataprabha police Station to give complaint and the said complaint was reduced into writing and she has identified her thumb impression in the complaint, which is marked as Ex.P.1. This PW.1 has been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence suggesting that, she was not present at the scene of occurrence and that she has given complaint, after coming to know about the incident. However, her evidence has stood the test of cross-examination.
14. PW.2-Neelavva is the sister of the deceased Dundappa. However, she has not supported the case of the prosecution. Except, saying that she came to know that her brother has been done to death, she has specifically stated before the Court that, she has not seen the incident personally.
15. PW.9-Shankrevva Dundappa Koli is the wife of the deceased Dundappa. She has stated that, her marriage with
- 14 -
the deceased Dundappa took place about 9 years back and the complainant is her mother-in-law. She knows accused Nos.1 to 3. After her second delivery, she was in her husband's house for about 5 months. At that time, her husband fought with her and had sent her to her parental house. Therefore, she was residing along with her parents. She has stated that, about one year back, her husband Dundappa had brought Shivaleela to the house and thereafter, he had taken her to some other place for about two months. Thereafter, again her husband returned to the house along with Shivaleela and during that period, she was remaining in her parent's house. It is stated by PW.9 that, the deceased Shivaleela was residing with her husband deceased- Dundappa for about seven months and that the accused No.1 had taken Shivaleela to their house. However, after some days again her husband, on one day i.e. on Sunday brought deceased-Shivaleela to their house. So far as the incident is concerned, she is not the eye-witness and she has heard regarding murder of her husband. Therefore, she went to
- 15 -
Gokak Government hospital and found that her husband has been killed.
16. PW.11-Raju Ashok Pandre is a witness to the inquest proceedings. He has stated that, he has signed Ex.P14, the inquest proceedings in respect of the dead body of Shivaleela.
17. PW.14-Arjun Kareppa Gasti is a police constable belonging to Ghatapraba police station who had carried the Material objects to FSL, Belgavi as per the instructions of the Investigating Officer.
18. PW.17-Dayanand Mallappa Maleppagol is the photographer who has taken the photographs of the scene of occurrence as well as the photographs of the dead bodies of both the deceased-Dundappa and Shivaleela.
19. PW.18-Basappa Bhimappa Chinchewadi is a police constable who had kept watch on the dead body of the deceased Dundappa. Thereafter, after completion of the
- 16 -
postmortem examination handed over dead body of Dundappa to his mother.
20. PW.19-Singadeppa Uddappa Khelari, Police Constable has kept watch on the dead body of the deceased Shivaleela. After conducting the postmortem examination, the dead body was handed over to her brother with proper acknowledgement.
21. PW.20-Balappa Yallappa Adimani is the Sub- Inspector of Police who has apprehended the accused on 11.11.2009 and produced them before the Investigating Officer as per Ex.P.30.
22. PW.21-Shrishail Shivappa Koujhalagi is the Sub- Inspector of Police of Ghataprabha police station who has received the complaint of PW.1 and after reducing the same into writing, he has obtained the thumb impression of PW.1 and registered the same in Crime No.315/2009 and transmitted the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate.
- 17 -
Thereafter, he has handed over the further investigation to CPI- Moodalagi.
23. It is in the evidence of PW.21 that, thereafter, he accompanied CPI to the scene of occurrence and after preparing the documents, dead bodies were shifted to the hospital, where he has assisted CPI in the investigation of the case including preparing the panchanama to inquest proceedings.
24. PW.22-Sadashiv Revappa Kattimani is CPI of Moodalagi who commenced the investigation on 10.11.2009 in this case and thereafter visited the scene of occurrence in Durudundi Village. He has conducted the inquest proceedings on the dead bodies, since it was heavily raining and since, there was apprehension that the blood stains would be vanished, he had conducted the panchanama of the scene of occurrence on the same day and thereafter transported the dead bodies to the Gokak Government Hospital after taking photographs of the said dead bodies at the scene of
- 18 -
occurrence. It is in the evidence of PW.22, that thereafter, inquest proceedings were conducted. The panchanama was prepared and the photographs of the dead bodies were taken after subjecting the dead bodies to the postmortem examination by the duty officer and the dead bodies were disposed of by handing over to the nearest relatives of the deceased. PW.22 has also seized the articles at the scene of occurrence, so also he got prepared the sketch of the scene of occurrence as per Ex.P.37.
25. PW.23-Mohammed Hafiz Mohammed Ghori Desai, Deputy Superintendent of Police continued the investigation of this case. On 11.11.2009, Sub-Inspector of Police of the Ghataprabha police station produced accused Nos.1 to 4 before him and he has recorded the statement of the accused No.1 as per Ex.P.38. So also he recorded the statement of accused No.2 as per Ex.P.39. On the basis of the said statements, weapons used by both accused were seized under panchanama. The cloths worn by accused were also seized by
- 19 -
PW.23 and thereafter, he has conducted the investigation. After receipt of the documents, namely Postmortem examination reports and also Forensic Science Laboratory report, he has filed the charge sheet in this case on 08.01.2010.
26. PW.24-Dr.Vishwanath Kotagi is the Medical Officer of K.H.I. Hospital, Ghataprabha. On 11.11.2009, at about 6.30 p.m., at the request of CPI, he has examined accused No.1-Kempanna Bhimappa Belavi and his son Shivaning Kempanna Belavi-accused No.2. He has given a certificate as per Ex.P.41, in which he has certified that, accused No.1 had sustained a bite mark on his right hand which was of human origin.
27. PW.25-Dr.Mahesh Balappa Koni is another Medical Officer of Government hospital at Gokak, who has conducted the postmortem examination of dead body of deceased Shivaleela. He has observed five injuries on the dead body. He has given his opinion as per PM report Ex.P.42,
- 20 -
that, the death is due to shock and hemorrhage, as a result of severe bleeding and that the death had occurred within 6 to 36 hours before the P.M. examination.
28. PW.25 has also conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Dundappa on the same day. He has observed seven injuries on the dead body. He has opined that, death was due to severe bleeding and injury to the brain and spinal cord. Postmortem examination report of deceased Dundappa is marked as Ex.P.43. On 16.11.2009, PW.25 has observed the weapons which were produced before him by the Inspector of police after receipt of such weapons which are marked as Mos.1 and 2. He has opined that, injuries sustained by deceased Dundappa and Shivaleela could have been caused by such weapons. Accordingly, he has given further report as per Ex.P.47.
29. It is from the above evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the learned Sessions Judge found accused
- 21 -
guilty of the offences and has convicted them and sentenced accordingly.
30. Heard Sri.Ashok.R.Kalyanshetty, learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Sri.V.M.Banakar, learned Addl.SPP for the State-Respondent.
31. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that, in this case, evidence of PW.1 is the only material available in favour of the prosecution and all other witnesses namely PWs.2 to 7 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the entire case of prosecution rests on the evidence of PW.1, who is highly interested witness and is the mother of the deceased Dundappa. It is his submission that, there is no other corroborative evidence to hold that, accused is responsible for the death of the deceased and the benefit of doubt may be given to accused.
32. It is also his submission that, since PW.2 who is the sister of the deceased has also not supported the case of
- 22 -
the prosecution, the version of PW.1 that, she is an eye witness is doubtful and that the same may not be made the basis for conviction of the accused. Hence, he submits that, accused are entitled for an order of acquittal.
33. It is his further submission that, in the alternative, when the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. are looked into which are marked by prosecution itself, it is seen that deceased Dundappa himself was an aggressor and he is the cause for the entire incident. The deceased -Dundappa being a married person and having two children had enticed Shivaleela, daughter of accused No.1 and sister of accused No.2 and on account of such action, deceased had used provocative words against accused Nos.1 and 2 and also challenged accused saying that, he would take away Shivaleela and it is in this background that, accused Nos.1 and 2 were substantially provoked and the incident has happened in the spur of a moment without any application of
- 23 -
mind. It is his further submission that, act of the accused is protected by exception to Section 300 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, this is not an offence at all. Hence, he submits that, accused may be acquitted of the charges leveled against them.
34. Sri.V.M.Banakar, learned Addl.SPP on the other hand submits that, the version of PW.1 is very cogent and clear insofar as the overt acts of both accused Nos.1 and 2 is concerned. The time of the incident is about 1.30 p.m. PW.1 has seen her son Dundappa being killed before her own eyes and she has lodged the complaint very promptly on the same day by going to the police station. The version of PW.1 found in the complaint and her evidence recorded before the Court is fully corroborated by the evidence of PW.25- Dr.Mahesh Balappa Koni who has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased. The weapons recovered at the instance of accused No.1 and the injuries found on the dead bodies clearly corroborates with each other and therefore, there being nothing elicited in the cross-
- 24 -
examination of PW.1, as to why accused Nos.1 and 2 have to be falsely implicated by PW.1, her evidence is truthful being a mother of the deceased.
35. It is his further submission that, close relatives of the deceased and the interested witnesses will not leave the actual culprits and try to implicate the false persons. Therefore, it is submitted by him that, prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the order of conviction may be sustained. It is his further submission that, while examining the witnesses, nowhere it is suggested that, there was any provocation to the accused and the prosecution itself has got marked the statement of the witnesses who have turned hostile before the Court, whereas the defence has not taken any advantage of that portion of the statement which states that, the deceased himself has provoked the incident. Under the circumstances, accused cannot be allowed to take the advantage of the statement recorded by the prosecution. Therefore, he submits
- 25 -
that, at this stage, accused is precluded from urging that the incident has happened due to provocation from the deceased himself. Hence, he submits that, on this ground also nature of offence cannot be altered nor benefit can be given to the accused.
36. We have gone through the entire materials on record, more particularly the averments in the complaint and also the evidence of the complainant before the Court. From the evidence of PW.1 before the Court which is clear and cogent stating the individual overt acts of accused Nos.1 and 2 in assaulting the deceased Dundappa and Shivaleela by means of a weapons like Mos.1 and 2, we have no hesitation to hold that, both accused have caused injuries on the body of the deceased Dundappa and Shivaleela. The evidence of PW.25- Dr.Mahesh Balappa Koni further establishes that, the deceased Dundappa and Shivaleela have died on account of injuries sustained by them which have been noticed on the dead bodies of the deceased. Therefore, the submission made
- 26 -
by the learned advocate for the appellants that, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be the basis for conviction of the appellants cannot be acceded to and we find that the prosecution had adduced cogent and clear evidence to show that the deceased Dundappa and Shivaleela have died a homicidal death due to the act of the accused on 10.11.2009. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the accused have committed the death of the deceased by assaulting them by means of weapons Mos.1 and
2.
37. So far as the nature of offence is concerned, Sri.Ashok.R.Kalyan Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that, from the documents produced by the prosecutor itself, it is disclosed that, prior to the incident deceased Dundappa had challenged the accused that, they cannot do anything to him and that he would keep Shivaleela much against the interest and consent of accused Nos.1 and 2 who are none other the father and brother of deceased Shivaleela. It is also in the evidence of PW.1 and also in the
- 27 -
complaint, that there was a grappling between accused No.1 and Dundappa and therefore, there was verbal exchange of heated words between accused and deceased. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that, act of the accused falls under exception to 300 of Cr.P.C and the recitals in the FIR-Ex.P.12 filed by PW.1, mother of the deceased coupled with her evidence before the Court also reveals that initially there was verbal exchange of words between accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the one hand and the deceased on the other hand and it was followed by grappling of both of them. At that time, the deceased is alleged to have stated to the accused that, he would keep the deceased Shivaleela with him and also abused the accused in filthy language saying that, they could do whatever they want as appearing to their mind. At that juncture according to the prosecution, accused Nos.1 assaulted the deceased being provoked by the words uttered by the deceased, followed by accused No.2. This act of the accused in our view would not amount to murder. On the other hand, it amounts to culpable
- 28 -
homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, the act of the accused falls within the Section 304-Part-I of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC.
38. Heard Sri.Ashok Kalyan Shetty, learned advocate appearing for the appellants regarding sentence for the offence under Section 304-Part-I r/w Sec 34 of IPC.
39. Having regard to the fact that, the deceased Shivaleela is none other the unmarried daughter of accused No.1 and sister of accused No.2 and also having regard to the fact that the incident has happened, since the deceased Dundappa had challenged that, he would get the deceased Shivaleela as his keep, we are of the considered opinion that, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years would meet the ends of justice, while keeping the fine intact and also the condition regarding compensation.
40. Under the circumstances, the following order is passed:
- 29 -
ORDER The appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The Order of conviction passed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 302 r/w Sec 34 of IPC is altered to the one under Section 304-Part-I r/w Sec 34 of IPC. They are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each for the said offence and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000./- each in default to undergo RI for three years. The order regarding payment of compensation is kept unaltered.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KSR