A v.S'ta'te" 5» n
,.1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15' DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE KSREEDHAR 7 *'
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsI1cE:'éij§PLas<H _ A
CRIMINAL APPEAL N0;.61'1_/2006 «. "
C/W4__ _
CRImNAL APPEAL 1 1 10/2001?': ' "
IN CRL.A.6 1 1 / 2006
BETVVEEN2
Srnt. Nagarathna, H
Aged about 30 yéarégs . 3 ' A _
W/0 C.N. " ..APPELLANT
[By Sri. \:fishvv;1n;%;:h_'P$.;$ja;fy;::, _ --
Adv. --Am-icus C11ria¢;..04 '
Sri. Ravi L."Vai<1ya..AC1V}}
AND:
A ' A _Basav¢shw2ufané*gara PS,
Bar1gaI01'+:_.T'»--.V_& - ..RESPONDENT
{By S13; G. Singh, SPF}
10/2007
Maruthesh @ Maruthi,
A ~ S"/'0 Ramaiah,
_' jN0w aged about 22 years,
Lakshminagar,
Krishna Road,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore. V
Permanent resident of
Kodigehalli Village,
Thuruvekere Taluk,
Tumkur District. ..APPELLANT
[By Sri. Vishwanath PoojaIy.K, Adv.)
AND:
The State of Karnataka by
Basaveshwaranagara Police. ._
Bangalore. ~.,.pRE'}SP.ONDENT_fp.
[By Sri. G. Bhavani Singh, SPP}
These Criminal Appeals are iiled'~~._'ré-spectively under
Section 374 Cr._P..--C.,-._against ".the4jud.grr1ei;1t' dated: 24.1.2006
passed by the Sessions Judge_, °"TC'~VI, Bangalore in
S.C.No.163/2005.,Vcoriyiotirig the'Vappellantnaccused No.2 8: 1.
for the offence" pimjishable V'iu"1_'1de1"'i'Set:tions 302 and 201 Read
With Section '34 "'1E}_?C 'and sentencing them to undergo
imprisonment At'orv_..1i_fpeV3Vfor --,the offence punishable under Section
302 R/W": Section2'3?1..p' of llPC"'*and further sentencing them to
undergo Rigorous' imprisoiirnerit for 5 years and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/-- andl l.D'.,_ to unctoergo simple imprisonment for one
year. for the offence-p'uni-shable under Section 201 R/W Section
, .34 of.I}?C. Both the sventences shall run concurrently.
~ fI'liese, appeals coming on for final hearing this day,
A'SREEDHAR..RAO.J'._j..delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
One”Ramesh is the deceased. The appellant in Criminal
1 1 10/2007 is Accused No.1 (for short Al]. Appellant
Crirninal Appeal No.61 I / 2006 is Accused No.2 [for short A2)
ifbefore the Trial Court.
2. The deceased is the husband of A2. A1 is the
neighbour of the deceased. One Smt.RathI1amma– PW} is the
_3_
complainant and sister–in–law of the deceased. PW3 is the
brother of the deceased and he is also living near the house of
the deceased. The deceased was preparing and selling jerhins to
the retailers and he owned a shop in the Hong Kong’
Bangalore. It is the case of. the prosecution that..u’°A1
relationship with A2 and they thought._tha’.§’deceased
impediment.
3. The A1 and A2 on ‘iSl9.,2004v~ sedative. 0′
to the deceased, caused his death_llby__stranguiation._iihereafter,
A1 and A2 took the lflieceasedt’ ; o”rLf _ motor cycie to
Vrishubhavathi Bridge the face of the
body and threxxrl–.the:§j:0tifu111;:.Qt:-the river. The A2 had
told PWl.-.__ah_d oth’er~s_:’that-deceased had gone to Rajasthan for
sale of PAW-it constant enquiries about the
V whereabouts. on ..o2.’li0.::o04, A1, A2, PW1 and others went to
lbharmasthala and came back on 05.10.2004. PW1
was *f'(_2uhd4:the eonduct_of A2 strange in not being worried about Q_
_ the a’%:;>.sen._f:ie husband. PW1 insisted A2 to give complaint.
told she is not worried about the husband and that PW1
A be bothered about that.
4. On the same night at 10.30 p.m., PW1 went to the
«dhouse of A2. She found the doors were locked from inside, the
bedroom Windows were open, the lights were on. PW1 went to
the window side, she over heard the conversation between A1
-5-
aside. The appe11ants–aCeused are to be set free forthwith if not
required to be detained in any other case.
Sri Vishwanatha Poojary is appointed as Amictié’
The fee of Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.7,000/–. Tfie ”
pay the fee to him.
vii
X “=” ed[fSd/’4′ W