IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 2215"? DAY OF' OCTOBER
PRESENT z
THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE: 4. _ 3
AND F. _ _ -,
THE HONBLE M11.-I..:IsTIVCE'B.V_P.II§§'*1j%i _
CRIMINAL AIi>PEAI;I'I-{(1). 1261 "01If'2o:05:';§
BEIVVEEN :
A pa" j.
STATE BY.KYATTiA,SAN1§RAb " ;V .,
POLICE, .TpMKL{'R. ' * ...APPELLANT.
(BY sRi';_I?,MNVAv»qg;;'ADEs'L§S'PP_I.
S/O"REVANASIDD_ "LATE,
22"TEARs;'CAR12EI3;TER, HALEKOTE.
. H KY'['¥L~\_SA1\IDRA.. TUMKUR TOWN.
° :T§U:vIARA:$IAY'Tx1{A @ KUMARA.
,S'/O. NARASAPPA,
-- MASON.
'BA:3A'vANAI{ATrE BEEDI.
KYHHASANDRA.
* TUMKUR DISTRICT.
SREENIVASA @ SEENA,
s/0 VENKATACHALLPA.
22 YEARS, ELECTRICIAN.
GANIGARA BEEDI,
KYTHASANDRA,
TUMKUR TOWN.
1,
1,
.9
...RESPONDENTS
{BY SR1.KEMPARAJ,CHE’TAN NAG,AND
SRLSRINIVAS, ADVS}.
CRLA. FILED U/S 378 (1) 8: (3) cR.R;~e1.i’iA’RY”.?:iiE
STATE RP. FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT T-HIs.H’O’1w3LEi–v,
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAvE~1..iTO…F1LE Al\_§_
APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OiF~Ae.QU1.’rTAL”AAD*T. 1’8_.E}3.’Q5 ‘ »
PASSED BY THE P.O., FAST TRACK O_OU,R”T_-V; TL3iv1V:<,tJR,_ IN
S.C.NO.89/O3 — ACQUI'I'I'lNG'g *RESPOND-ENT/
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES U;/SS/ 310.2," 392. R,/VVVA
SEC.3-4 OF' IPC.
THIS ORLA CQMING 1~i=E_VARIi\lt’3:4.:ONVv’f’i’I-IIS DAY,
SREEDHAR RAO J DELEVERED FOLLOWING.
A
T
The nzatlefifégl factsg -of thejjifovsecution case discloses
that one ceased. Respondents 1 to 3
are a.cctised to “”{;efore’the«t’i’1al’Vcourt, for short A-1 to A-3.
1O.ne is the husband of the deceased
and Cha’ndrahs’e1{har<.I5W–2 is the son of the deceased.
is worl~:ing..«' as teacher in the Govt. School in
V :the neighbouring viliage. PW42 was studying in
.' .ct;11ege lffiimkkur. On 7.3.03 as usual, at 7 a.m., PW»l
took 'breakfast and went to School. PW–2 had gone to
*l"u,mls:t1r to attend College. It was at 2 p.m., PW–2
telephones PW–1 that his mother is found lying
l unconscious. PW–1 immediately comes to the house and
finds his Wife dead. No external injuries are found. PW–1
passing by at different point of time near the house of PW–1
and separateiy, they had noticed that A-1 to A-3 were
talking with the deceased. Their evidence further .discio_ses
that Awi is carpenter and known to them. The. _
agency had conducted Ti paradeiwln the. t'i';1.
identified by the witnesses. PW–i8 the_'i'ai:I.sii.c.iar'speaksto
the proceedings of Ti parade. the
thorough scrutiny of the of deceased
being last seen in accused become
doubtfui to be believed} witnesses after
hearing the of PW-1. it is
likely that '1'3Fwaé¥fi'p1?és.éiit"in-the house. Nothing is
stated by that they inform the last seen
circumstance to ""PV'J~«u1'*–.–giiihere is no mention of that
cireumstance .i_n the FIR. Even assuming for the moment
'ginteracted with PW–1 before iodging of a FER.
._ t.1ie:"time of inquest, this circumstance should
have stated. Co1.No.11 of the inquest discloses "that
AA i?W;3v..–and PW-4 were present at the time of inquest.
it There is nothing stated at the time of inquest about the last
seen circumstance as stated above. it is the evidence of
PWs.3 to 7 that they knew A-1 and he is a carpenter. If
really the said theory is true, it should have been found
piace in the FIR oz' atieast in the inquest report. It,-.i__s only
after the inquest, the theory of last seen circi1;fi'sta:}ce
sought to be developed by the prosecution,
above discrepancy, the trial court: has '
accused.
Hence, the appeal is di_s’m3}ssed;’ V
____ ., Sdiwé
Judge