sgfisém POLICE
'(}3&*T'%;3Rr'§é;'Mi_. ifikawaz, ADDL. SPF)
IN THE HIGH COURT cm KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED T1413 THE 2913 DAY OF JULY, 2009 A
PRESENT L M '
THE H()N'BLE MR. JUSTICE K:SREED%§49. l§:R$€i:: 3
AND Av ' H
THE HOIWBLE MR. .;Us*m:g. c.I§;---
crm. NO. 2006" H
BE'I'WEEN:- 5 '
CHENNAMADA NAIKA, H
s/0. PU'I'I'AMAD_ANAIKA',
CONVICI' NO. 314313-,
CENTRAL PR:S{}N, ij ' "
MYSORE. '
4. .V APPELLANT
{BY SR1 P."PRASAIn!N}i KIJEr'.AR AMICUS CURIAE)
RESPONEENT
Tr%;1s%%%cii1éL.A. IS FILED PREFERRED BY THE ABOVE
CONVECEIAPPELLANT/ACCUSED AGAINSI' THE
~?,"---.V'"..J.UI)GMENT m'.30.9.a5 PASSED BY THE 9.0., FTC-I,
QMYSQRE, IN ss.c.rzo.?2?e;o1 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCSSED 3201; THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
_ u',Is.3o2 OF IPC AND SENTENCING HIM T0 UNDERGO 12.3.
.,,F€)R LIFE AND TO f'AY A mag 09 RS.20G0/- IN DEFAULT,
R1. FOR 2 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
'' U/3.302 op' IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED/CONVICII'
PRAYS THAT THE ABOVE ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE.
This appeal is coming on for hearing this .--day,
BREED!-[AR RAG, J., delivered the foilowings
JUDGMENT
The case: of the pmsecution is thfiltfy: S_Iu{_*-. ‘
Maludevamma is the Wife of the detgfiaséfiii
is the brother of tht: accused,» The acgfised L’
with the deceased had two éafighmm One
daughier was married ma éthfir two
childrma were young in age. v ‘i§?s¥$;_’_.suspecfing the
fidelity of his frequently
statingighat sfié}V’bas_:V;i1}i¢i’%.Elationship with other man.
I 2. ‘« advised the accused not to
susgggéct the {hat the deceased is a woman of
. ‘}’hc«tH;1H§”;,;<«3eascd unable in bear the torture and
the company of the accused and she
% _ her mother for some time. The degcased
'bamt: back Eiuliguppa village (husba3:x£i's nafive
She was residing separately along with the chikimn.
20.6.2001 around 4.30 pm. sen of E-'W7 came ané
inforzned PW'? that the accused has severeiy asgauitcd the
4/
éeceased. The PW'? immediately rushed to the spat,
the deceased lying with injuries. On enquiry
informed that, her husband has asséiilted «'}:1§.:r. V
was shifts' d to the hospital. The ~.
injuries in the hospital. the ‘V
police on the same day ;at..9.3Qp.– fépart-éiscbses
that the death is of shock and
hemorrhage as a_::”esuIt:’0″f’ The death
is a homicidal for committing
an ofi”cn <:_té
J' of the accused and has
}odgcd_ a S ffiiét police. PW? claims that the
= ._T§Il!5,l_CI€ declaration that tbs accused has
<':a1:1ASed._ PW4 and PW8 are the neighboars of the
"&I;hja=i;i'VE:vide:nce discloses that around 4.30 pm.
thég Qéere fetching water fmm the public tap they
V' cries from the house of the deceased, they went
dcceaged on enquizy told that the accused has
T " ériafised {ha injuries. PW 4 and PW8 also speak to the motive:
V that there used to be frequent quarrels between the accuseci
4/
and the deceased since the aceusmd had suspected the
fidelity -of the accused.
4. PW’? in the evidence has turned 3
not support the prosecution case regauiing
declaration made by the deceased to’
the basis of the alone evidence of
the accused for an offence 11/hxs
5. Counsel for the appeiitfit sttenuotisiy. submitted
that there is absolutelyttétiiet’Actediizfie against the
aeeuseg. The tiieeieses that when h1m’ self
and PW’?-.Went were present. PW2 does not
speak afiytfiing .abve”u_ttfl’._:e dying decimation. The theory
_ of preeeeution t1ta1i.t3;e__d.eceased has made dying declaration
ie belied by the evidence of PW2. Hence,
§”rg:1’L«d.Af<5r
. 'thorough consideration of the evidence, we
151:-d,etthat"'the evidence of PW.4 and PW8 is natural and
They are the immediate neighbours of the deceased.
"Their evidence discloses that immediately on hearing the
" Vexies they go to the scene, they found the accused running
4/
deceased lying injured. The deceased requested water. They
gave water to the deceased. On enqujxy the deceased
informed that the accused has caused the iI1jlJ1'iCS..' "The
evidence of these witnesses clinchingly estab'1isifie$'
complicity of the accused with the oflence. n..I
also corroborates the versian that the"d;eath_
case of the prosecution that the
deceased had illicit m1a::§r.shi;;$ 'I'heAaoc1 Jsed in
a gave state of quarrel caused
the deéith " of V of the suspected illicit
nel.atio_nshiij."~«.. the circumsmnoes, woujd he
< 9Afi"e33.ee'u,i..s9.A304 –Part 1 {PC and not 11/ 3 302 IPC.
View the appeal is allowed in part. The
0.3.. is altered to 304" Part 1 IPC. The accused
the date of anest on 22.6.2001. The accusaw.
detention almost for a period of 8 years. The
period of detention is imposed as sentence of
Ar
7. With regard to the ofi1e:1ee,A
imprisonment. The accused is deemed to have
sentence.
The accused is directed to
required ti) be detained in aay»Tnth.cr
Sd/-‘
JUDGE