IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD 4 V _ _
DATED THIS THE 25'?" DAY OF' AUGUST:.~2{§.i}i3t "
PRESENT "' S7"S"
THE HONBLE MRs.JUsT1cE_M;Ar§JU§;;;(:1i1g:Li;Li:§, S
AND .
THE HONBLE MR.JUsTIc.E "
CRIMINAL APPEA§;«»No.g526i2.cb$
BETWE EN:
STATE 0F KARNATAKA
BY THE SUB IHSBECTOR' (5.13 S'
GADAG RURAL ...APPELLANT
(BY 'A__I}lZ)L.SPP)
fi_.a..1'J.2 _
KARANACHI,
1' AGED' 53011? 33 YEARS,
Rio
RESPONDENT
,. CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
SA 3V78(1V}~-'& (3) CR.P.C BY THE 31»? FOR THE STATE PRAYING
(A) GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE
"J.U_..E')GMENT DATED 10.4.2008 PASSED BY 'THE LEARNED
"EDISTRICT 8: SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG IN S.C.N€}. IQIZOO7
SO FAR AS IT RELATES T0 ACQUITTING THE
RESPOND ENT I ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UIS. 302 OF IPC. & ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY MANJULA CHELLURJ, EELEVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dirmtcd against the
of acquittal of the accused I-if
S.C.No. 19[20()’?’ on the file ef the Eisifict & Sessiezis J:1z.dge;”V L»
Gadag, so far as offence puxfisldable 302 of
IPC.
2. The ub4.£_’:1′<':\f__'i'ac't;.'av;"'t1"1'e;:"tV.¥ V§§§gi§uauon of a case
against under:
* Davalsab Imamsab
Karaixackti of due Dawalbi. The respondent
along Jsresiding at Savadi Village. As
aecfidérxi respbndeet dssaulted her, she came to her parental
a month prior to the incident in question
._
d .. 23.2 .2007, the rmpondmt said to have came tn the
” house of Dawalbi with an intention of taking his
Adfwife back with him to the matrimonial home. Not only the
” parents of Dawalbi said Bawalbi also refused ta go back with
the accused. In that quarrei, he is said to have assaulted
hm’ by a pounding stalk on her head as a result she died at
the spot.
3. A case came to be registered for the ‘Jofience
punishable imdm Smtion 302 IPC against
accused on the basis of the complaint of
deceased Dawaibi. In all, five pxVoseot1tio1o._uriIn.esse3s”fi§?ei’e
examined apart from producing 3 4 ‘V
4. Based on the e\zide11c_e_ o£ brother
and other family “of the Sessions
Court ulfimately came fthe. ‘chat though the
accused Was3._:g’u2fiEtj?_eofV ‘i}’1e ofience punishable
undezf Sec’_tio:’1;V_..3_«V to the fact that the
purpose Vof’visit.Vof’ is only to take back his wife,
but, 11VI1fort4{i13ste1},I.v”ix3L’:~}. ejetarrel ensuing betwem the parents
a’eg;usea’:i«,V'”th’eV acecused picking the pounding stalk
“:«;jt”z_si}.s1:1’§1eJéz’$f:”flse;.3pot of the quarrel and Ilitting on the head of
‘tI’.geVdece…a’s:ed::and finally having regard to the fact that only
one was gven on the head of the deceased by the
A “ii pofinding stalk, the learned Judge properly opined that
:§%11g1*a£i;iet1ts to form the ofience punishable under Section
302 of IPC Wm: absent as there was no intention to kill the
deceased wife and also having rmard. to the fact of one single
blow being given, concluded that offence was punishabie
under Section 30441 of EPC. The observations of the learned
Sessions Judge and the quantum of sentence irrmosed is
appmprhtc to the oficxzce established by the prosmution,
accordirg to us. Therefore, we do nat find any good groutfitii “‘ .’
to gram leave sought for. ‘ <
5. Accordingly, the leave is rejected a1ri4AL?n:é’appea,’1–‘i3’A. ” ” V
A
. . ‘ . ..
‘up -V .,_