IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA; BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2973 DAY OF MAY 2008
FRESENT
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR"«':!§Ai)'E~.: '"a
AND
THE HONBLE MR. JUS'I'1GI\\. L.EAREYA1§A'€53*AMY "
CRL.A. }Vo.8V?1.V4::C?£?>2O£§I. '
BETWEEN: M
STATE REPRESEN'I'ED"BY' * _
THE DETECTIVE INSP}3}Cl'{_)R,__ c:;,1.s-1., _
0.0.1:). (H.B.),_ _ I
BANGALORE.
* . APPELLANT
(BY SR1 ANAND' K. .;i€AVALGiMA'PH;-- SPF}:
AND:
1 Y VASANTHA -KU19;EAR'4SHE'1'TY
S] OF. EHoJARA.J:%.Asm5:'1TY
AGED 25," BELVA-_ v1~:,LAGE
KUNEAPURA fro.
" « ..... .. V
' .5: *JiJ.&YA[K:{:}'k{AR SHE'I"l'Y
. E;oE. faxgioaama SHE'I"I'Y
' AGED 26;'j_BELVA VILLAGE
K1.1N£}A?1J--RA TQ.
UDUPLIDIST.
PRABHAKARA sHE'mr
* S_I_£)i3'.NAGAYYA SHE'I"I'Y
AGED 33 YEARS,
_ BELVA VILLAGE,
8
KUNDAPURA TQ
UDUPI DIST.
VASU Si*IET'FY
S] GRNAGAYYA SHE'I'TY
AGE!) 28 YEARS
BELVA VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TQ.
UDUPI DIST.
B RAJU POOJARY
3/ 0F.B.RAMA POOJARY
AGED 26 YEARS,
BELVA VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TQ.
UDUPI DIST.
B UDAYA POOJARY _
s/oF.3.RAMA--1?G0JA;RY
AGED 24 YE.ARs3-;'"' , _
BELVA
KUNDAP'URA5TQ. "
UDUP1-DssT;D_
CHANDRASHEKARA =SHS'I'"!'Y '
3/ OF.RAl'vlANNA
AGED 28YEARS,_ ' D'
31:: Jim VILLAGE.
R/(2;>.sURAGoL2., é
KUNDAPURATQ %%%%%
. fufipuiél Dish. _
.Y-"BAH i{§a'.Is§ira'A SHE'I"!'Y
3; 01:'. RAMIMNA SHE'I"I'Y
AGED 'YEARS,
BELVA 'V1 LLAGE
KUNDAPURA TQ
A J} Dumas: DIST.
jasflox KUMAR SHE.'I"I'Y
D. M S/0F.M.V.SHET'1'Y
AK
!
PAN FOR R3 AND RIO)
JU-£_>GMENT~= D1'. 39.4.2001 PASSED BY THE 1 ADDL. S.J.,
"53i,»-,R§;s'.R0NDE;:~;#'s-Accusran FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
I;/R2,. 147, 143, 302, 12043 AND 2011130 R/W SEC. 149 IPC.
. delivered the fc:>l}.owing:~
AGED 27 YEARS,
BELVA VILLAGE
R/0.mL1YARA WLLAGE
UDUPI TQ.
'U9UPI DIST.
10 KRISHNA RA1R1@ KRISHNA NAYAK
5/ OF.PU'I"I'AYYA NAIKA
AGED 27', BELVA VILLAGE
R/OSATHEVALLI,
KUNDAPURA TQ.
UDUP! DIST.
11 RAGHURAM SHETTY %
S/OPXMAHALINGA SHE'I"l'Y _
AGED 29 YEARS, R 5 _
R/QTHOMBATH1}
HENGAVALLI VHLLAGE
KUNDARURATQ, ;
UDUPI
12 THORAN}iaTI~I:'X"SHET"!'Y"--['}R, ''
s/oR.$ADRsH1VR SH_E'!'fI"f"
AGED 3:2 ¥RjARs'i'A§"
R] 0.';ViAmDVI' _ ' - _
KUN13z\RLI_RA '.FQ..
UDUP1 DIST. ' ' _
R _ RESPONDENTS
(BY SR} S’VISHWAg.IIfI’H SHFTTYR. FOR R1, R2, R9, R11 AND R12)
‘ …THIS’vQRL;Ajf’£–S FILED Ujs. 373(1) 65 (3) cR.P.c. BY THE
SP1″-R>—FOR fFiv£E«v.ST;*\’.F.’&Iv”PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED “£10 GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST
D;K., MANVGALORE 1N S.C.NO.121/96, ACQUFITING THE
– appeal is coming on for hearing this day, K. SREEDHAR
JUDGMEKT
One Vaaanth Kumar Shetty (dmscd) had politicatextmity
with A1 to A12. The deceased was supporting Ccngeeefite
accused am the supparters of BJP. In View of
accused persons conspired to do away “With thte V’
Kumar Shetty and in furtherance of en
1 1.05 pm about half a furlong cf of ‘ L»
him with deadly Weapons age c::=,5,.th_t ‘.A A
2. One Annappa on 31.3.95 at
6.30 am noticed thedead (father of the
deceased). PW police around 1 1
am. In the to A6 are suspected to
have causeti {sf political enmity. It is fl1!’fl’.l€I’
said that A13′ gap: Dwaraka in Bangalore for a
day so aetn _p1e1u}eavt and has committed the offence of
I-V:h avg”-;g1V;nV’ éffendet committed the murder. In the course
of ituiaiéitated that PW6, cousin of the deceased is an
‘ ‘”*~*eye wit1eessv- flee incident and that he has named the
~ ;..pg:ticipati6nV__E>f A1 to A12 in the assault and causing the murder.
t–11e-V report dis-cioses that the death is a homicidal death
V. on account of shock and hemorrhage as a result of
multiple injuries ta the vita} part. The pIosecutior:é’_:A.eé:;eeV:’
rests upon the evidence of PW6 who is eye Wimees’to:” ,
The trial Court found that PW6 is a emgsti
evidence cannot be believed. The ;
prosecution has pmved only _ . being
homicidal It is not who
caused the murder. Since l3:iLljfz’i__’§vas regected, the
accused are it
3. PW6 incident at 1 1.30 pm in
the night feather’ ebout the incident on the
same night:.h’_i’}1e” PW22 are side by side. we is
none other eepiicjfi 22 and cousin of the deceased.
‘Father i3’W6 not oommunieate the information to
” ‘meg __F’W22 comes to know about the death. of his
‘ is admitted that ?W6 was throughout in the
ivhouse efier $:he’iiicident. PW6 was present at the time of inquest
W “‘:«:v”.g{1;<:1y."atte;1de£i–' the cremation. The statement of PW6 is recorded by
IIQA.' twe. deys after the incident PW6 does not disclose that he is
'eye_wii21ess at the time of inquest to the police. The version efePW6
"isieitotaiiy incontradiction with the version stated in the me. The
" finding of the tnlak Court that the evidence of PW6 is incredible is
just and proper. Thcrefcme, that order of acq21ittai__ié"$d1;t§é
proper and accordingly appeai is dismissed.