High Court Karnataka High Court

R Suresha S/O Bairappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
R Suresha S/O Bairappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 April, 2008
Author: V.Jagannathan


BEFORE

TIE-IE HONBLE mmJtIssTIcE_m.I:gaA.?iiirL*ré:;;i§”

-I.\IwnvIwnI.-A–our

5′-hum-mn}1n gqfg ‘F|..m’1-an-rIrn.n

Ag agent 24 yaam._ V
RM» tfiaxaganagma,
Muttapya Bmok, -‘3″! ¢::r¢a_?«.V ;_
Narazymmppga _
(By sr;am.A,c:mmmm&.m%A

%smmm~
By flue affiajjagnpura _ 4 ‘

” .:_-.’L’._-L21-ac_f’..-‘~a -w .m………._……: 1.. unrzrm
gage’ $J_I..L.-..F4.«F..»’.–L:

..t;:1uuugm.:5nz&.L1. .l. u..-ur;

1:. !’l:.1t:~..:_~1_ mg; % 37′-sqggynr the;

gprayhg wixmt tlzm judgnlent dated.S.1§1.05′

– **paa.a¢¢i by the P.0.. Tarncm, in s.c.1i¢.7o. (oo;
mm app-allantfa-:3-ousud for the ‘.ut1’énoe ‘ ‘

. pwfishabla undar Section. 313′? nftha I..P.C’..

This ~Crl..A. coming cm for hearing this :.cl’a_y,_ this.
Elcmrt delivared tlrm fo1hwing:- 5

mg gmtttr wag :;m,_lh;=n;1, mg _

,,,_,_. _’I’I, “AL £31,.

for firm appauant and 3

ce:m;rsrm’L1:z1u:l.i_t1g of flu’: ofienee i;r1t:ig:::1@- fiécfiisvifx

oft1’1eI.P.C. and to e1cq11it’t}w._V§1p}fiiEllfi.11t

mm: in the: ‘joint patiuon.

-V – ~ ‘I ” . “£1, 1,

flnf amdavi: Q m Am
irg’um::1f bacltgltluxld of
the i31:1.u:3aEz::1-¢i’it%_ ‘a.a§b1L&;1,__ the? parties to

can11gia3LLtud 133 acquit the appellant. On

V. has valcalat the

pc;rmia$Im§’:fi::”‘mf the learmd I-ICIIGP for the State

“s%r%s;H.;:

I”! .. l.”‘.. .. .1. .. ._.’…:…’f..__ ___. ___. _’.._ _. .1… n.1_._ _’_……_…..
ufih. 1. I13 IELIIE Elm 1111.53 CU TILE HEIVB

‘ iidcwansel-cq:1~rmnt;s am 17:: the cfiemt. that the appellant herein

‘mam-s pmat mm trial in S.C.Nn.’?DfOD for the ofiiance
purfiakmblu undnr fiectiun 30′? cut” the: I.P.C. an the

aflmwmg-;fiy-an 1;h.n1’__ an 1-he 111191 fifha ._.ug.:_§fl_

na..;.n-‘rE’r..n lunar-I: .u .u..nu..p aha: 4 – u -r -v :. ——–r -1-I-v-u———–‘ –

lung; aiclde mfl ass-atfltetd all over

calmed him gzdeawus injurir:-aa. The moi-fie V

ammtxh. by the eaccussed is aaidjii’ ‘

a;«a’1:.a::.t” azf £11.15: :,1-.J1.1g«a:1 nun-335w

in itlhe nrsnnlplainsant ‘tz1x,'”‘T’*~,§*i’.’

n1i.m:hi»¢wL1s nimmnaf-*l;a,_tma~”‘di1 the
p;a.«cms:.=x;*.11tian leading of the charge
t1’1:rw:::u3,,Lg,h was %1-mi g1~¢ag¢u:gaacum.m 1.-zxa. P1

m M’? §.a;mm.a¢:+ntaame; 1m-r-.-2:51. _’__1 ‘._fld.,.g!.§
f’mm1:_i ‘{fIf1fif pfiifiaefiiatian haéi provrsci the cane agama” “t
the mljgrgfiant’ jpuniahahle under E!-action

3(1f1§°’* a£%tme”1.;m::. ma uiianuicnad him and mmtanced him

vfV”§r’:’-‘feat pa:-1:;-:1 xrzaf 10 yearn and to pay a

“.r:«.Q 42:.” _ I .: . .. _….. .,.
. LI. JII*U_5.u,.Uuu[ “‘ |J.LI..l. u.u1.nI.|..u. auumwwmn :u.4.u.

3:-3.51:1 igflfiammt, an amount at’ Ra.5.0{)0f- to be paid

n t:*:__ 1;11.ig1w;m:mm;:r1ainant.: This judgnwnt of canvictian and

‘ pauased in rxvallnci in qL1m1;io1’1 in thia appeal by

Ina arm: nnnlfi Q

” W,”-

u…m..- u.mI.II J1.-Inn.:.’. am am: i.JI.I_n.w._a.|. Luu nun-n.a.i1.j.i i1.I_|.’ ‘ Jul.” ‘T.-I.I.’ n..rn.dI..u””” ‘ ‘u.uuI” ‘1}. £3.11 ‘1; 3

sq?!

fix. it is. at stag” ffnf fix’ “”””t”‘~” ‘us-:=:it'” “-=m3.ir’-”

fcnr he:+a1’i1’1g that the prasant developmenin

pmum in firm femrn of j-mint petiticun being ”

aggqwllmnt aw wall as. the V

sm.’i,e:&. timt he has izhe» V

by mm and he iii: hm:-k W.-k.Ha run-um
s%n:m-ad the ixnjuriea ware?’ parts of his
b@dig;’ and he; during the

by hi… an g;a_Lh ix;

thn :2.-._’Iifi-:?la.$’xrA:’t’1*t.L’m1t.7.’rV1′<:.i§;&.§Va¢tti§€i firm dii'1"esret1cea
him. ¢a':uiia;i3: the a;é1J;md"–gififihably and therefore prays fiar

'-1:9' the nffance. Same is the

" «.1=*giésa:sr-.rifi.eé:1J';s1«;.';ad -11'! jr.:L'1t. patitian.

leamatl Cmunsel far thfi appellant has

n p7i:;w:t13§§fi 5 dmian of this. Cuurt in £2r1.A.Nu.483{'99 and
am ma Apex Court daciaainn reported in 1999

C1"T'..L…E€..3%%'+-5 to auumi. t..:z-…. fin if '£1.13: Q9114-t to

a 'i.i"i1zt§'i-$.56? "mat tlm mass cnf the appaiiant falls tiflciezr Sea"*fi

35331 mi' 1111:: I.P.C3. and the said offanxm being not

9%

1t1*'1.::.w:1 hara 9.13:: 111…… 9… n'……1"l'1-'..:3_*t.r1'£=V whgrain.

avt=.'=::':!.'|;E1'1::'.'vr:*. of hnpxfiammmnt aheady undm-guns

fi§2_;1f[.JvEfi1la§z11tft?&.I3#£3113it$£§3. 12¢ trezawd as: the "

the mifitxzuaa punishable ureder Secfibat K 2

E' 5*'! '44 -I -I–nn.r-I
iI1"i.'i£'m of thc 1:uL«c:ae:1ic»1=ja1~..g:xric1':*§fia3€,;.I'*a1I¢1l as theamdmt
r1s:m.r E]:-.u:1 by the ' Court may

-;~.m:1.:,siw:iL:::1r me t::fi4e$i~1ces Swtion 326 of

mm sidaa and aha taking

. . . ” I .

” . 61 ‘-4
mi’ 1:];-1e p¢;r’fiea also «$.13-5% to put an and in than

clam mlatimcaa, in’I11j-‘ view,

._ ‘i:’5’f1_.f:fI.1.1i§_;§:|5I”_r’r,’s_:”1:~.~..T’j;:*i£a’i floufi. hfifin canviated tlwa .==r’*filla:.-*-… £9:

msraza.;~apun.ia1mb1e under Section 307 oftha 1.r>.<:.,

* mi,m:uéé''' iznjuries caused to tha victim mat

dahgmma tr.) fife and thus victizn alsm satatirag in the

' au..M:§-..*«..:i.. .1…-=-:1 by; him twat 115 ix; back to his nnrmal

an Wflfk an"; 'usual, "*a:'.'r*r the
Q

q I'

heaailrla and ~'::arr3ri;ng

Ifin

.–.'Bu4-nuns. .,I:Ja;n.rLu-aIAn.|~1.~|n$_A|.alnaI.A-lulu. &-'mam .,-n.;u..:-ha. .a.«l" #1-LA .n.a.-1.
{I-'l§iu"a.»"H' 4"p.1"1l 7'-11.5 I 'V ' L1.l35 5433711!" UL

b3?mL1§g}1t mi ' the ambit. of Section 326 of .4

S" In the deciafinn cf the V

.. ..– …-w, …. -.ne…

19:39 «.::::»_-1 Lat er wag he1«.a. t1:,a.:t1%m:aar-%%. .

1

uxm”-e’r ‘:1-mc’f” tizmu of H13″ I;T£r’.7i3,. its not ua’nI:::””T

otm. cozmimimfixlg the:’:i”a_e:%t settled
thflir riiaptxtas uu.tsid§:3:_ tan years also
h.mz5 ¢i«Lta.jgassega§.’ and the
flourt ruaduwd 156193
ue2:”1te;9n:§%: ” ‘ to the already

4…. _’I..

‘ 1-” .. _1_-. .n.’L__ _-_.___’_1.___..%
‘ ‘;’.\’;-‘…vl’.1’l.~flI.I:~§B $3.33 011 IIBIICI. B150, [HE 1I]I.a-‘1U,.BI1L LIJUIE

fnfi£au,m:r:n ‘fi5».1lnl999. ahnaat tan 3-mm back and

nE4.+:+_.u’r.tu’;:rsi1;:’t1.1.~_r,.r the affidaxrit filed by the cnmplaixmnt hixnself

A’ “‘.. ii1xii::;~.atm the vziessire at” the: parties to bury their

” H’;-Ffin-‘Hwnmnnhn nnnn nr
…………..n……………….. ……-a… -..–

wzfl. than-‘
anfié f1:;t*”r.’tmr aa aubrniaait:-11 rrroacia by the appeiianifs
Cmunaei that thsa appellant was in custody for mum

%

t;hm:; :…u:” ha pfatfisery ‘”‘~.-:6 ciajrai

said. amflhzamission made by the appellant alum

a«:sr*iu:auae13r disputed by the laamad HCGP,

Viufiw’ that thixs. case scan aha be

p1_.;-._i.I.~.t.._a…1_

307 of the I.P.C. is
‘A :31’ cmnviatian u.1:1der
‘ ‘of the I.P.r:….

3;:

5

E
“K
E.

E.

E
3

.~ .. .’.. ……. …,…… .. L.
:.,y:..-‘ 1:911 11?. 1.51., 1.’l”J.1′ u1u11i}’1u, 15 L1’.

sentence: by that trial Ccaurt is
mduuuacl ta t1’E period uf three munflm
alreawzlgr muiergone by the appellant in
mmhwdy.

£’\

fir

fi’u.aJ.u'”‘i’I’..

.I””h
3.5..

wt:

:1
5′-‘
h
h
3

_n1 1 I-19′ in nu1′.Aum-v-

‘3’ ‘Hull ‘In’ IR’ ”

‘I

the appellzmt. before the %
nut 01′ which an uf
nzmmpiaiimntf

me appeal dippoaaa at in the

ab-mm YllE.’9I’11’1E.’

51-1. Judge

maid mnou11t ha ::1gpggit_.@” A’

‘ .. ” ‘ . 1*’ T A