--- . .-- nu': 'ar1|r'1IIul'I I ' ....... .,.-gun. vr s\.nIuIruru\.H ruun \..|JUIl ur RAKNAIAKR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA H IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT' BENCH, GULBARGA Dated the 27"' day of August 2008??' ' 'V. :BEFoRg; THE HC'«'N'BLE MR.JUSTICE'=--.; CRIMINAL APPEiiL"NQ. 1%'27$,r BETWEEN : F» i 1.
Basappa, j . , _
S / 0 J ummanna H’o1_~:1%1t1i;j V – __
Aged about 30;yéét1″s; Ag1ficultLu1.jis}t,
Bijapur i3i$tric:t., Kawadimaiti. Village,
Muddebihal*;’.Ta].p.1;§’ %
2. –» ‘V
S / 0 ‘Bh:;3e3_;a{ppa, V
‘Aged abo1f1ft,64, –‘do-.
3. Béflappa; Q}
, — .. Sf/0 Badakappa Hagar,
Aged abc)’ut.,__3_6. years, -do~.
S.V.Pattanshetti, Advocate. )
. . .Respa1dent
( By Smt Anuradha M.Desai, Advocate.)
2
<
z
E
E
ii.
0
I-
M
3
0
U
:1:
Q
:1:
E
E
z
E
5
J.
3
E
3
3
J
1:
2
1:
5
5
t
:
I
5
3
E
I
1
I
—1» -1111:
whether it was permissible for the trial court to have
tried the two cases separately when the i11cide_nt_Vthat –
has given rise to the two cases is one and _
12. A three judges Bench of
case of State of MP. Vs. fin’ Qioioat”
SAR (C11) 409, s ‘
H.K.Sen1a, dealing ceunter case
and the necessity 1’ the very same
court, has ‘tiI1d.ei’:
is undisputed,
officer submitted
basis of the complaint
A . .. 1od§ed_:’by.the”‘ac’c:used Mishrilal in respect
the shame-~-iticident. It would have been
V and proper to decide both the
it by the same court in View
‘of guidelines devised by this court in
” ,V’I~iut11j1a1’s case (supra). The cross–cases
should be tried together by the same
court irrespective of the nature of the
offence involved. The rational behind this
is to avoid the conflicting judgments over
the same incident because if cross cases
2*»
5\lHf\’\ Lu.-an I..n.u..rn|_:nu…u… ._. .-.
7.”’-‘r-”fl’/O” 4’ “nm’mn”H “N” “‘-“-“‘” Ur NHIUVHIHRH ruun LUUKI Ur IILAKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HI
are allowed to be tried by two courts
separately, there is likelihood of T
conflicting judgments. In the
case, the investigating officer
the challan against both thegVpa1″ties’.’~Eoth”i~::: to _
the complaints cannot he it
Either of them must _be at it
situation, legal
investigating officer endegssour
to find out outthe
truth from the Hiifortunately,
the has med to
V in
grave. j 5′
In the “the” Apex Court also
referred to its “‘eau1_r1j.c14’V’dc’%§’c:;i:_sioi§’1;e’ in the case of Nathilal
gstaefipf tJ..I=§ (i”99~oiV1(supp.) sec 145, and quoted
the._0hS’€ITvations«.Iiiade therein, which are as under:
_ the fair procedure to adopt
in a like the present where there
T «cross cases, is to direct that the same
uiesrned judge must try both the cross
one after the other. After the
recording of evidence in one case is
completed, he must hear the arguments
%
\lI”|I’\”\ I l£’\Il x ..nnL.ru_:u II)’: .-.t
14
17. For the aferczsaid E’€8.SOI1S, ‘thfi appeal is aiiawed
and the jucignént sf the trial cauri: c0nvict§z1;g~..4_fh,_e
yregent appefiants and santeficing them is: _
The appefiants am acquitted of Viglgez offe1’1ict-“:’s:ib3§ §%hic11.I ” ”
thay wars convicted by ‘me c:;)ut;¥:
bonds shall stand discharg$_<:'d,'.
%W:?:3E mm QWWMW Human me-…M NN64