IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA§C_:éOW1Z'--.i3g'._ CRIMINAL REVISION PE1iITION--f€.'.5.:§7_.7:;;§;_/200S' » BETWEEN: Sri.Narasimha @ Doddanarasimha " S/O Duragappa Madar Age: 31 years, Occ: Service ' R/O Jambavanthnagayrr Behind Tiwac Quartersfi _ Dharwad PETITIONER (By Sri : M.Ku'su-Ina-ka The Stateofi Ka'rna'ta'i<a ' Rep by its '\.lid'ayag._iriC~--POi~ice Nov-J'represente_d' by State RP. Hi.gh~ CO_u:'t_ Of Karn---ata'ka Building BangaI"O.Are_54a.S60 001 RESPONDENT C By__ %sriv§'.V1r;;aati<hindi, HCG P) T;hisfcri.RP is flied under Section 397(1) read with 401 of t';'r.P.C. praying to set aside the Order Of conviction and sentence dated 31.10.2003 passed by the III Addi. Civi'i~_.3udge (Sr.Dn) and CJM, Dharwad in CC NO.848/2001 _ ':an*d' the Order dated 09.06.2004 passed by the Pri. Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Cri.A.No.51/2003. This Cr|.RP is coming on for Hearing this day, the Court made the following: ORDER
Respondent had prosecuted the PeVtiti<3:neifii.for%
offences punishable under semen:323,utg39u2lftsne4:7"er
IPC on the allegation that on 01t'1..i):;'2l.)01 a'bo'ut
p.m. PW}. —- Guruprasad Sh\/'anfi'i.Devadi.ga"Aw.ho",isVrunning'
the hotel in Raichur':Be_edi_riF'a_cteo:y:3iV;"'c-Attikolla of Dharwad
and PW4 — Sathish whe the hotel and
at that time them to supply
brandy toi' accused was informed
that 'th'e..:.saEd'::;ij'Vote'I',»t.V.:'brandVYW not sold for which the
accusedEpicVked'ij_fp._"qi.ia'-rlrel,.assaulted and beat PW1 –
Gurnprasad _Sfrya.mA'De'vadiga and PW4 – Sathish. When
t.ried– to tel'e'p'i1one to the police, the telephone was
»v44by::"'_the accused. PW1 – Guruprasad Shyam
'Deg\radiVga:f't–oid PW4 —- Sathisn to go and inform the police
by g'oErS[g over to the poiice station on M01 — Scooter.
PW4 -~ Sathish was proceeding to the police station
___on M01 -~ Scooter, the accused forcibly snatched the
E,
to be the defence of the accused. No defence evidence
was led.
3. Considering the contention ra’is_edvjf~.bVyR
learned Public Prosecutor and th,e”learned, C.oun’s«e!
defence and appreciating the rec_or’d_, in his”‘o\ivn»:waVy;–..g
learned Magistrate held that’v–vi.the. prosecu’tio_n wprovedll
beyond all reasonabl«5.,,doubt’s’, ‘theujpr_osecutVi’on”Vcase and
accordingly, convicted Vb the offences
punishable 427 of IPC and
imposed the accused filed
Crl.A.lflioi’S1/iéi§Q§::3:’in Prl. Sessions Judge at
Dharvvladill – Judge after re-appreciating
the Veyidence,,V_:Vin.,’.his”v.oy\in way, has held that, appeal is
de»=}_,o:id:,.,o:f myeritsflavnd’dismissed the same. Chalienging the
s’a_i,d”co’n.yict’ion”,j,. order of sentence imposed by the Trial
and’ by the Appellate Court, this petition has
been fi.l,eél.
4. I have heard Sri.Kusumai<ar, learned Counsel
"appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.H.Goti<hindi, learned
t
I}
b) The orders impugned in this petition are hereby set
aside.
c) The accused is acquitted by
doubt.
(1) Since he has been taken intb c’_ust0dy,._ the
directed to be reieased;—,forthAwith,. if”r)bt[ir’eq.:.:ired in?’
other cases.
e) The baii bondaccused and the
surety stand cance’i|-égyy . ,, ‘V
Regiistr_y°_is”‘id-irectedu”‘to.:.i–cb’;nn”iunicate the operative
porticjh’br”th:é_ordfei” tjoatrse je_’iVE”‘é1Vuthorities for giving effect
to thevdsaimet — V T
‘V Sd/_
yyyyy JUDGE