3* A "M}sB.LmA.PPA
" A 7.2": '
A " ...r§§ADHU
T NARAYANAPPA.
IN THE HIGH coum: oz» KARNA"1'A.I{A AT '
DATED mzs mm zom DAY or MARCH. % ? 1
PRESENT % M R V'
THE HOIPBLE naa.JUsTIcE:v.ét>i§A1.A R "
TI-IE H1ON'BLI3
_Q_R___I_MINA;_.
BE-swam: . 1'
STATE BY ?Av5;;ég:;§;é;':.i:§§§,;;§:,g«{ 'V .. APPELMS MT
(B$'_V'.Sri}4S«;:_1t.iVs.I"1' 1F~2_C§i':ir':,;'i.,..AI~4i~€i.£'?:i5;'}§
AND: .... *
1 TH::Iy:MAR.A}3U;. .» , .,
SIONEAIRAPPA
2 KRiSHi\fP£PPAv -_ "
sga 1§2THAe,A_NGAPPA
» _ * 3,2 :3, KET-;a;;:3;g~;GAPPA
4 . "'TmRAé§1M_H}i'P:3A
A __s/0 KLTEAIIAQANGAPPA
_ vmA%AKUMAR
" AA S/O*3\EARASAPPA
sf/0 NARASPPA
S/O GAN(3&PPA
ALL ARE R/AT HARLIANA COLONY,
PAVACEADA TALLFK, RESPONDENTS
{E}? M/S. ACO ASSTS. ADVS.)
\\M/
CRLA FILED U/S. 378 {1}85{3)CI3€.P.C. E3′? ‘THE SPF’ FOR
THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HUMBLE COURT MAY.”E3E
PLEASED TO GRANT’ LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST
JUDGMENT DATED 7.9,2U{}2 PAESSED BY THE: C.J. fJR}§)N’}–
JMFCK, PAVAGADA, IN C.C,NC3.172/02, ACQUET’}.”_};NG’–«
RESFONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENSES PU’N”ISE~£AB=LE. ‘
L}/83.143, :47, 148,448, 324, 326, 506, :14 WW 1.49,_§3l”5fi?§§. _
was CRLA. COMING ON FOR c5*;\?DE;’r2Ts:’H§:A’R:.Nc,
DAY, GGPALA GOWDA, J, DELIVERED THE F”QLLOW1§§§ . 2
Junenimifr, % A x V
This criminai appaal the
Judgment dated 7 : Judge
[JR.DN) 32. PAVA§i§ADAA},:V4Ap&~IN,i,._§3.C.No.r72/02,
acquitting for the offences
pun1shai,§1§ 1:n{::::f 333,,’ 143′, 448, 324, 326,
505, 114
2, qfhe : of the said Judgment is
‘in this appeal urging the
f0i’}QWi11g ”
‘i¥.ha1:’;}’e3L§ii”§1:ez1t of acquittal passed by the learned
T.Vfia1,,_,Iud’gé, is conflmy ta law and the evidence on
‘_’_;f§:_=,'<:i'«:?}i"{i."A'£t is czonteridsd that PW.1/compiainant is the
T -jfiféfeof the injured PW3. Injured Pws 2, 4 and 8 are the
Eye wimeswas; PW5 is the ID; PW6 is the docter; PW'? is
the Chief Officer of Taiuk Panchayath, PWS 9 and 10 am
the Panel': witnesses for M {jut of these
taken through the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW6
and other Paneh witnesses and also the impugned
judgment passed by J MFC.
53. The case of prosecution is that, on 6. ‘
about 6.00 am. the accused urflawfuily
Harijan colony in Hassan with ehjeet ”
commit an offence under
1130 armed with clubs mag bxfiek 1;; hand,
trespassed iglto the hoeee and
assaulted him due to the
assault the sustained grievous
injury threatened to the
life of well as her husbeed.
Thereafi;envaIt9€1e,:V the gave complaint to the
jigssdieeor;a1ee–pe1ice. ”” ”
poiice had regstered the ease
1 agaiizet agecixeeci under Cr.N0. 173/01. Accorciing In
Z eompiaint there was ill—wi11_betweeI1 the
Thim maraju, Krishnappa, Maeiietappa,
VT :N’are1eirnhappa, Vijayakumar, Madhu 3116: Narayanappa
9′ in respfitiri: 01′ the towfl pacmya n betweeix her’
husband and cemplainent. There was some quaxtrei
between them eariier to the ofienees aileged to have
committed by the accueeé. Due to injuries in1]i’i1_V_
PWK} and PW.3 by the accused, they have
offences punishabie under Secs.32€}A,>V ‘4
and 114 1’/W.S€C. 149 of H30.
7, We have carefully exaV1§1i1}edV”t}a.e
the finding and reasons ‘alge
in the impugze-(ii ‘4 points
framed by the ieanfxed to find out
as to (i) ‘5.?£7l”}(::”,’*C1″;t*'”.’-I4: warrants
inter’fe;’ence.\’;%%~~.1i;;’;é. the findings are
erI’one03_1e~- ‘
8. ‘i’hee«–._aforVeeaVit¥_v ” are required to be
‘answered qgaillst fi1€..S_t.-‘§3;t€ fer the foflewing reasons:
‘I’ria.1 Judge, on the basis of
proeeefi£ioIz ‘ee:se has formulated the paints and the
_;.;f21.¥_;I16 are vaixzswered in favour of accused by recording
at paragraphs 8 to 12 of the impugned
V. and held that pI'()S€C {ion has failed to prove
10. The 168131601 Trial Judge has rightly felt that
there is a doubt on record to enter the accused bmxjigtit
{<3 'aha house of colnplainani: and further eviééiittci .
PW4 states that the quarrel had taken,_p}aC§é'C§i%$§i:i'é'~:a1f;a3 u
house and he has stated in his efiiidbnéa "I;i'até;5ia1 1./.:
.-.
objects were faunci autsftde thtiV.if:1vjt).1;se.’
wife had stated that tf1e;_.quaIT§;1..L:§i%;*¥s’take.z.i flf)1»%£1.(A2{3vA..I;».§I3.Si(i(i3
the house but PW4 had {aken piace
outside the hogsé’ 7 MOS were
Seized by 31¢ 1.t§f1§g’..”13:§i?_i153s&;”‘i?’uI’ther the £0
has course of crass
examinafii€>11″ the statements of
relatives as $231}”a_$V’:1i€-._»§16:ighb0urs. But on perusal of
” t}jé’1ieighbour has been mezltiomed but
:1{§taz’e residing surrounding the heuse
of ‘¥:’I1 ¢”:§ The independent witnesses
–. : -‘«.f:XaIfliI’lC{1.V¥§I1O are not the raiativas of the Complainaxlt.
turned hostiia to the proaecution. The eye
“‘*.s,ri_j:_1j§.-=:ss*,si:s who are deposed in favour 0f the }3§'(}S€(3I.i’€.iOI}
?W2 and 4. They have aisce deposefi that they have
:10: Seen who assaulted the i According 151:) mam,
only after hearing the sound they came out €~1I1£i.’\ii}.’}::€
injured had alreaciy sustained mjuzies. There{0re,V,’:tfieV:VV”
iearned Triai Judge has rightiy observed {ha1;,__’t§§,::: T’ _
{:0 the era} evidence of PW1 to
evidence is inconsistent with eaCh”‘nther,..”.a1iVdA’ {l*Jje”*
complainant PW E. has not at in
accordance with the Vf;he\, ii*1ou–eeeléefiation
either by oral «evidence evidence
in reepect of” of the
complainant on the part of
the . Judge has Jdghtiy
made obseivéitiou that,’ ei*a§”e§ridenee of Pws 1 to 4 is
ineo11si;;te13.t with eéieh oiher and aise with the evieience
the Wife of irgureci PW8 and in the
abee_n€’..eA.0Ef’ exp_lauj}s:itieu regarding trespass into heuse of
veomplehuautt the accused create serious deubt in the
‘ ~ee;se* efpreeecution.
-‘ ‘I 1: The learned Judge has recercied a finding that
“.tf;ei*e is a temper of date which create sezrious doubt in
file ease of prosecution. Fmfher, in EXP3, the FIR
hedged in the peliee staiion she has stated that PW3 the
‘N/