I
IN THE PHGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9'?" DAY OF NOVEIVIBER, 2010
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE K. SREEDHAR
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.KEsHAVAx§ARA"§iA1¥iA' A-
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.9 OF 2095' »
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO=._1 1 2.605 {A}. 4' A - T
In Criminai Apnea} N0.9/ b
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka ._ .
By Inspector of Po1iCve,~-- _ '
H.D.K0te. ._...AVV;F1fv)pe1Iant
[By H.S'.5(T?haf1dra,:M.f;uI:1._' SP9]
1 . 5 -- -.
_S"/0. Rafiga.-swavmy.
'Aged~.ab0ut 55 years.
-
W1'-t)'j_ Ganesh.
.Aged' about 45 years.
A "Bath are Residing at
K.Yedath0re Post,
N.D.Kote Taiuk. ....Resp0r1dems
*':[By M/s. P.Nataraju & Associates, Advocates]
E:
2
This Criminal Appeal is filed Under Section 378 (1)
and (3) of Cr.P.C. praying to grant leave to file an appeal
against the Judgment dated: 26.07.2004 passed by the
Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court«~IV, Mysore in
S.C.§\lo.221/2000 M acquitting the respondent.s--ac"cused
for the offence Punishable Under Sections 341"-a.r_'1"d_ 302
R/w 34 of IPC. ' V. " V.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1 1/2005
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka
By Inspector of Police, V '
H.D.Kote. _ '-,._;iA'pp'ellant
{By Sri. H.S.Cl1andra.'_._Moul'_if,
AND: P " A'
1- :i[Nagéfé31r1».e 0 . 1
"VS/'o I\/}ari1}j'atii.;;; .
Aged about
2. *Santl1os_h','
" 0 o__1\/£ari'r11vut.11u,
}\ged"a_bout 22 years.
if ai<»e"Residing at
K...Ye'da'tl1ore Post,
N.Dv.'Kote Taluk. Respondents
2. {By P.Nataraju 81 Associates, Advocates]
This Criminal Appeal is filed Under Section 378 {1}
P and (3) of Cr.P.C. praying to grant leave to file an appeal
2' "against the Judgment dated: 26.07.2004 passed by the
Presiding Officer. Fast Track Court«wIV., Mysore in
S.C.l\?o.335/2000 -- acquitting the resporidents-accused
3
for the offences Punishable Under Sections 341 and 302
R/W 34 of IPC.
These Appeals coming for hearing on this day,
Sreedhar Row, J., delivered the following; '
JUDGMENT
The respondents in Criminal
are accused Nos.1 and 4 and ‘re.sponlde’n_ts«.;in
Criminal Appeal No. 1 E /ZOVOSV arelraccuserdi
before the trial Court. The-Cease up and
separate charge sheetwas however all the
accused wereA’-secured”ajr’1d”both V’:thVe”:cases were tried
together V by. rt-IV, Mysore.
The _fact…*’disciosed that there was land
dispute het\2iIee.n’– thelaccused persons and PW.7. On
aboult”ll2.00 noon, when PWs.7, 8, 9 and
Wife of PW.7 were tilling the land,
the persons came to the land and objected
Accused No.1 pushed Palaniyamma to the
and the other accused trampled her. The
Fdeceased became unconscious. She was taken to the
H.I)._Kote Hospital. At the hospital, it was found that
‘xi
Palaniyarnma was dead. Thereafter, PW.7 lodged the
complaint on the same day at about 5.45
deceased was subjected to post mortem *
The autopsy report disclosed that”‘thepde_ath’4 to
Cardio Respiratory failure due
and compression of brain in the occipital”v_:re’gion’ has a V’
result of head injury, T he post ‘does not
disclose any other the deceased.
Though the committing the
offence 302 r/W 34 IPC, the
trial T’ of the charge under
Sections 34 IPC. However, accused
Nos_,*1~to 4 yv’ere”conyicted for an offence under Section
l and sentenced to undergo simple
a period of 20 days and to pay fine of
Rs’I’–]_,OOO/Q7 each. The State has filed the appeal
. challenging the acquittal of the accused persons under
$ect:ion 302 lPC.
3. The facts narrated above explicitly indicate that.
accused No.1 had no intention of causing death or had
the knowledge that the injury suffered by the deceased
is likely to cause death. Learned State Public
contended that in the context. of the medical
and oral evidence of the eye witnesses.’ the accused navel.
to be convicted for the offence
IPC r7w 34 IPC.
4. On thoughtfalllli;:onsi.d.:erlatig1;iA;p’.W; firid that the
accused cannotbe he1’d”ét1i:ilt§i’ 304 Part–II
IPC. not appear to
be proper, FIR and the evidence
disclos-ed’– No.1 who pushed the
deceasedl’ar_V1hdv.th’e._other:accused trampled her. The post
report”«does not disclose the corresponding
i~nj”uries:”o:fr1.Tthe body of the deceased to prove the
t1*arnp1i_r1.g:s:’jfliherefore, the proof of the overt acts of
accused’;.No.2 to 4 is not established. The act of accused
in pushing the deceased also cannot be considered
H an offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC so as to
attribute the knowledge of causing death by the said
act. The deceased was pushed on the mud surface and
6
there are no boulders or stone at the spot. The deceased
was simply pushed by accused No]. The incident
happened in a state of quarrel. The deceased was'”aged
about 70 years. Under these circLm1star1ces¢,…._i_t –c:a;<n71otV.
be said that accused No.1 had the knowledge-.::oi'
death by such push. Therefore;thehorder of
recorded by the trial Court»ru;'1der'–Se{:tion
sound and proper and does for i-ntderfereéace.
5. Accordingly . dismissed. Sag; Iflixgg S&fim Iflxgg