Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. At the very outset, it must be pointed that though the sequence of the events narrated above, disclose that ill-will between the deceased Channabasappa and Amoghi was growing for quite some time before the occurance, on the date· F of occurrence i.e. 5th October, 1991, the action of Channatiasappa along with his son Sadashiv who was also · killed ir:i:tflj:S occurrence, stated to have caused some injury on the saidAfi)oghi around 7:00a.m. on that day at his place which enraged~tf,i~ son of Amoghi and the other appellants who took· G it in the affront and in that pursuit, the appellants along with the other accused stated to have marched towards the house of Channabasappa in an aggressive n:iood carrying weapons and fearing serious consequences, Channabsappa and nine H A of his supporters who were all killed in the occurrence, entered the house of Channabasappa got them bolted inside to escape from the onslaught of the appellants. Unfortunately, it came handy for the accused to bolt his house from outside and by setting fire to the house on all sides ensured that none of the B inmates were able to get out of that house and save their lives.
11. When as many as 28 persons were involved in that process at the early hours of the morning of 51h October, 1991, it transpired that before any police force could come and rescue C the victims in a matter of about hour and half, the fire set by the appellants to the house of Channabasappa completely engulfed all those who were inside the house who were all charred to death. The medical evidence in the form of post mortem report have confirmed the manner in which the victims D died by fire.
12. As far as the distance between the place of Amoghi and the place of occurrence is concerned, it is stated to be just two furlongs which could be covered in a matter of few E minutes. The Police Station is stated to be in a distance of about 8 kms. The complaint was recorded at 9:45a.m. at the instance of P.W.1. There was also information furnished to the Police at around 9:50a.m. by P.W. 23 at the Police Station who was aged about 100 years on that day.
13. Earlier on that day A-11 who was owning a jeep stated to have carried Amoghi after his assault by Channabasappa and his men and arranged for shifting him to the hospital at Jabalpurwho was also present in the Police G Station at around 8:15a.m. At his instance Crime No.133 of 1991 was registered in the Police Station as against Channabasappa and others for the assault on Amoghi.
14. In the above stated background, the High Court while H dealing with the appeal has found that the evidence of P. W.1 YALLAWA & ORS v. STATE OF KAR NAT AKA [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA J.] alongwithP.Ws,2,4, 5,6, 10, 11, 16,21,22and26whowere A all eye witnesses to the occurrence sufficiently demonstrated before the Court as to the manner in which the setting fire to the house of Channabasappa after they entered the house qnd bolted inside were surrounded and the bolting of.the house outside by the accused persons and the manner in which the B house was set on fire, as well as the adjacent house and also how the accused ensured that none of the victims who entered the house of Channabasappa were allowed to escape frpm the clutches of the accused and got themselves charred to death at the hands of the appellants. The High Court having C noted the charge against the appellants namely, 147, 148, 302, 436, 504 read with 149 IPC after analysing the evidence of the eye witnesses made a note of the various specific overt acts referred to by each of the eyewitnesses vis-a-vis the 0 concerned accused by setting out a chart in paragraph 24 of the judgment which runs to 14 pages. We find that the High Court took pains to make note of the various details with reference to the sequence of events spoken to by the eye witnesses, specific role played by such of those accused who E contributed their might in setting fire to the house· of Channabasappa as well as the adjacent house and thereby ensuring that none of the victims who entered the house of Channabasappa were allowed to escape from the clutches of the appellants and other accused and ultimately met with their f death.
15. Having regard to such detailed analysis made by the . Division Bench by making specific reference to the eye witness account supported by th·e medical evidence, we are of the view G . that there is no scope for this Court to make any further analysis in order to find out whether any of the appellants could be exonerated of the charge found proved against them. However, Mr. Ma hale took strenuous efforts to contend before· us that at least insofar as A 11 and A23 were concerned, it H (2015) 11 S.C.R. could be said that they were not present at all at the place of occurrence and, therefore, even with the aid of 149 IPC the offence as against both of them cannot be said to be made out. In the first instance, when we·consider his submission with reference to A 23 (Appellant No. 16) we find that he has already withdrawn the appeal and, therefore, we do not find any necessity to consider his case. We are, therefore, confining ourselves toA11.
16. The contention on behalf of A-11 was that after the · C assault of Amoghi by the deceased Channabasappa and his man at7:00a.m.,A11 shifted the injuredAmoghi from the said place of occurrence and arranged for his transportation to the hospital at Jabalpur and also simultaneously went to the Police Station Chandechan and lodged a complaint which came to D be registered as Crime No. 133of1991. A-11 was stated to be present in the Police Station at 7:45 a.m. forthat purpose. P.W. 23 Hawappa also went to the police station after he witnessed setting of fire to the house of Channabasappa by around the same time. It has come out in the evidence of P. Ws. E 43, 48 and 50 thatA-11 was atthe police station at 7:45a.m. initially and going by the version of P.W. 50 he was present in the Police Station upto 8:15a.m. Again going by the version of P.Ws. 43 and 48, when P.W. 23 went to the Police Station F who was present in the Police Station till P.W.50 left the Polipe Station which was stated to be at 9:00a.m., A-11 was present inasmuch as according to P.W.43, A-11 on hearing the· complaint of P.W.23 relating to the firing of the house of Channabasappa by the accused, A-11 slapped P.W.23 at the G Police Station when the time was noted as 9:10a.m. Again P. W. 48 in his evidence stated that A-11 was present in the Police Station at 9:00a.m.
17. The above evidence disclosed that A-11 who went H to the Police Station at 7:45a.m.was found present in the Police YALLAWA& OR3. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAJ.] Station at 8:15a.m. and again between 9:00 and 9: 15a.m. As A against the above evidence available through P.Ws. 43, 48 and 50, the evidence of P.W. 1 and the other eye witnesses disclose thatA-11 was found to be extorting the other accused · at the place of occurrence with all vehemence at his command for setting fire to the house of Channabasappa by issuing B different orders such as for bolting the house of Channabasappa from outside, throwing salt and kerosene into the burning house and also issuing such other directions to ensure that the house of Channabasappa is set on fire totally with ten of them inside the house and everyone of them C ultimately met with their death.
18. The learned counsel, Mr. Mahale, while appraising the version of P.Ws. 43, 48 and 50 submitted thatA-11 was present atthe Police Station at 7:40a.m., 8:15a.m. as well as D between 9:00 and 9:15a.m. which, as spoken to by the above witnesses who were all police personnel, there was no scope at all for A-11 to be present at the place of occurrence as spoken to by other eye witnesses. It must be stated that the Police Station was hardly 8kms awayfron:i the place of E occurrence. A-11 had a jeep at his disposal and it was he who organized for shifting the injured Amoghi to the hospital and also preferred the complaint with the Police relating to Crime No. 133 of 1991. It can be stated that immediately after the F assault onAmoghi at 7:00a.m. A-11 who seems to have been interested in the welfare of Amoghi took every effort to save him from injuries sustained by him and also file appropriate complaint relating to the said incident with the Police which exercise he was able to successfully carry out.
However, when G we considered the evidence of the other witnesses who have consistently referred to the presence of A-11 at the place of occurrence and the nature of activity indulged in by him, and also the act of A 11 who was present in the Police Station when saw P. W.23 making a complaint in the Police at;>out setting of H (2015] 11 S.C.R. fire to the house of Channabasappa, got enraged and went to the extent of slapping him unmindful of the fact that P. W. 23 was an old man, aged more than 100 years who stated to have fell down as a result of such harsh behaviour of A 11. Sinc.e, the setting of the fire to the house of Channabasappa occurred at 8:00a. m., if A 11 had no hand in it, there was no reason for him to get enraged when P. W. 23 reported the firing incident to the Police. Therefore, the conduct of A 11 in having sharply reacted towards P.W.23 and that too by slapping him in the presence of Police only shows that he played key role in the C setting fire to the house of Channabasappa or spoken to by the eye witnesses.
Therefore, it is quite apparent that while on the-one hand, the grievous attack on Amoghi cannot be said to be justified, A 11 's mind set to take revenge at those 0 who caused the said attack onAmoghi cannot also be justified. Therefore, when the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was hardly 8 kms in the village, such a distance could be covered in a matter of few minutes in a jeep in any case within 10 or 15 minutes. Therefore. ir. the absence E of any concrete evidence to show that as bct;;.ce3n 7:45 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. during the entirety of the said period A-11 remained only inside the Police Station and did not move out of the said Police Station it will not be safe to simply go by the version of P.Ws. 43, 48 and 50 who referred to his presence at the Police Station at specified hours i.e. 7:45a.m., 8:15a.m., 9:00a.m. and 9: 15a.m. and thereby hold thatA-11 could have never made himself present in the place of occurrence in between those hours.
19. Therefore, when we analyse the evidence of other eye witnesses we find that they were very categoric in their statement about the manner in which A-11 was moving here and there at the place of occurrence, actively involving himself in issuing commands to other accused in the process of setting H fire to the house of Channabasappa and ensured that the said YALLAWA& ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA[FAKKIR 707. MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA J.] house was completely burnt with all the ten victims inside. We A are, therefore, convinced that the conclusion of the Division Bench in having found A-11 also guilty of the offence for which . he was convicted was fully justified. We, therefore, do not find any scope to deal with A-11 differently. Consequently the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. All those appellants B who were granted bail by an order dated 11-12-2009, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and let them be secured· forthwith and imprisoned to undergo the sentence awarded by the High Court as confirmed by us. As at our request, Mr. Mahale appeared for those accused who were not otherwise C represel)ted, for his valuable assistance to the court as an Amicus Curiae, we direct the Registry to pay him a fee of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand). Nidhi Jain · Appeal dismissed