High Court Karnataka High Court

Amjad Khan vs State Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Amjad Khan vs State Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2008
Author: Jawad Rahim
HJTHEfflGk§COURT(DFKARNATAKA,BANGALORES

DATED THIS THE 8*" DAY OF DECEMBER 2003-jfj~..'_°~~._

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE .:3~A'.fi!AD.'FiAH1%§.i';v»    

CRL.RP NO. 1522 OF 20fO7C%
BETWEEN : ' I A

1. AMJAD KHAN _

S/O.t<HALEEL KHAN   1

AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS  *

OCCU -. STUDENT   A

R/0.111 MA1N,.j11T*"' CROSS _ . _ A 
VINOBANACSARQT-'     
DAVANGERE,:wF2°j,"» :"<E '

2. RIYAZ  1111 _ 

S/O.MUJEE_B KHA'Nj_., H _ , 

AGED ABOUT 20 vEARjS_ A   _'

OCCU : ERU1'TS'TvENDOR=.  

R/0.111 MAIN,"1..3'"fMAIN'+.  

VINOBANAGAR "  T * 

,.DAvAN»G3-ERET  DDDDD  .. PETITIONERS

('BY SR'1.,HA,RI~SH_ 'KUMAR A ADVOCATE FOR
SR-I.V.;-P.KL}§;KARVN.IV_E»~ ADVOCATE)

Z  'AND {

S' " 971'S_T'ATE OF RARNATAKA

 4' R.ERRES..ENTED BY ITS
"P_UBL}C_.PROSECUTOR
'HIGH COURT BUILDING

 'jj'BA,N.GALORE 560 001  RESPONDENT

(BY SRLRAJA SUBRAHMANYA BHAT ~ HCGP)

‘Z”‘a 5\
EU?

petitioners came to be apprehended, on the accusations

that on 6.12.2005 at 10.45 pm. near the DentaI_4.Coi4i_eg_e

road at MCC block, Davangere, accused

furtherance of their common intention_–“spraye’d-1 chiiii

powder on the face of Dr.Kiran~C\n_/41 a~rid?t4r’ieed-.to-

of his mobile phone and other-things-fo’r’ciVb|y_{..i,

raised hue and cry which 3ytt’ra’At.’nt:i§£:i4V’a_ttentio’n~A or; others.
They made good their they were
escaping, twotpoiiice night rounds
received and they went in
the directi’on:ioi.’the;Dentai~:VCoI’Ié’§e’.’} They saw two accused
runninij”‘._& they were apprehended.

iVir.Pratap,u’ Vpo__Iice”coiistab|e who was on duty on that

day.55’a.nd_iAV’iyas p”r’oce_ed.ing towards the Dental CSSSo|lege

‘foi’|’owye’d._the~yi’ctim Dr.Kiran.

rtisihed to place of occurrence. The accused

were identihfied by PW3 and the victim as the one who have

VVV”:f..aAccested’ the victim. At the poiice station the accused

— were produced before the S.i~i.O. and investigation

“proceeded. Since the victim and as also PW3 Pratap

identified the accused, chargesheet was filed. During trial,

tr; ,
A
I.»

Act. In this view of the matter, the order regarding

sentence imposed upon the accused

imprisonment of two years is set aside. The .acc’£:s%edw_fi

etitioners who were found guii’t'””are ‘.ordere’d_ to=:7be.”:

reieased on their entering into a bond with two_-.sureties_’dfo.r”~

a sum of Rs.20,000/– and ceifed a it

period of two years in;—-.caseé..t’he~,?jiniduige in”any’ further
crime to receive sentence.’ “e.i,.’iiey1_«’s’hja!|’maintain good

behaviour and .pea’ce.

With tn_es-ed’Vo:bse”rvatiio.ris:_.V:the Vtgetition is disposed of.

Self”

ELTBGE

rsfl.”