High Court Karnataka High Court

N Vijaya vs State Of Karnataka By Holalkere … on 3 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
N Vijaya vs State Of Karnataka By Holalkere … on 3 August, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao C.R.Kumaraswamy
 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGU$.'§f"2,€)f}j"A:?_§j:.  _

PRESENTV  b

THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1cE7K.sREEDHAE"EAG~,_'*.1A A '
AND--- % A
THE HON'BLE MR._JUSTiC1§C._RA...§{UMARASWAMY

CRIMENAL AE';T5EAL__ ;L\:oQ':Oi3Q/E42006.

BETWEEN:

1.
N.VIJAYA;'       A' 
SON oE.NAGAP1>A,   4 

AGED ABOUT  "

occ. t,3OOLI'E;._--v

R/AT.i*ADAK¢Aq~»yA~ '

 ._   
SON;OF,CHZHKAIv1MA.

 -    38 
 "OCC. COOLIE,

‘R/j’1TfFA_Lfl_LI£{XT_1’A VILLAGE.

3;N;’BAsAi*AE:AJAPP,
SON. OENAGAPPA,

‘2__AGED~ AEOUT 26 YEARS,
COOLIE,
AA « “12,/A*1f..TALAKAT1’A VILLAGE.

4 ,%KARIYAPPA,
A. “SON ORCHEKKAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

0%

OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

R/AT.TALAKA’I”I’A VTLLACE.

5.DHAN1 @ DHANANJAYA,

SON OENAOARPA,

AGEDA BOUT 21 YEARS,

OCC: COOLIE, ‘- A
R/AT.TALAKA’I’TA VTLLACE. .. APPE§LLA3’=JTS.V: ‘.

[BY SR1 N.SR}NIVAS,7_ “‘AND_A.DTT,TF%F%SRI:’

M.R.SHASHIDHAR, ADV.)
AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKAV . —

BY HOLALKERE POLIC_E._ A “.~.gRES_PONDENT

[BY SR: G,VBHAvANTi SI£%é.GfeT,

“£fHIS-CVRL,A,,”IS ‘E?II;ED- U/S 374(2) CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE EOR.THE=-..ARPELLANTS AGAINST THE
JDDOEMNT D’1′;28.A3.–QGT. PASSED BY THE PRL., SJ.,
CHITRADURG’A»_IN =S.’C”.NO.44/03 CONVICTING THE
ApRELLAHTS;”ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5 FOR THE

“F”v..OF”FE1\EACESA.P/U/SS.’ 143, 148 OR IPC AND U/S 324
AR/W SEC.T_149 OF IPC ON FIVE COUNTS IN RESPECT
‘ OEFENCVE_j.P/U/S 326 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC &

F A ‘”40 IN RESPECT OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 R/W
1-~«’§9S”j’..–OF IPC. AND SENTENCING THEM TO
UNDERGO R.I. FOR 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE

~ P/U/S-I43 OF’ IPC. AND THE ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 5
A.SE1’lfI’ENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 1 YEAR FOR THE

A -,,OFF.E3NCE P/U/S 148 OF IPC. AND FURTHER
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.L FOR ONE YEAR EACH
..,.§’OR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324 R/W 149 OF IPC, ON

FIVE COUNTS. AND THE ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 5 ARE

Ar

A3) assaulted RW3 with a club on his waj1jst._:la;’_1d

assaulted the deceased Rangappa with a clubfon _

side of the head. Accused No.4(for 9short”;AIll:j’assaulted ‘* it

P.W4 with a club on the right

No.5(for short A5) assaulted”–3?..W2lt’vvith the’)

right hand and left hand with
a stone on his right land 3 intervened
and pacified t_l:1e__ qu.arrehl.::1 a complaint
before the. 1.15 a.rr1. The
in the night hours.

The ” taken to C.G.HospitaI,

Davanage’re_.j11e ‘succumbed to the injuries on the next

u w

sustained one abrasion injury and

twol”contu’sa1orl injuries, which are simple in nature and

lv..jjEX.P–lfc;::l3t’;. is the wound certificate. P.W2 sustained

fjcontusion injury on the left hand, which are simple in

nature and Ex.P–l7 is the wound certificate. P.W8

%/

sustained two contusion injuries, which are simple in

nature and Ex.P.19 is the wound certificate.

3. P.W13 sustained two contusion it

two abrasion injuries, which arefsirripie’-,in.;«r1fa’t11re”-and”.

Ex.P– 15 is the Wound certificate.

4. P.W4 sustained twoone
abrasion injury and rnet’at_arsaf1’V1§one, which
is a grievous V injury!’ the Wound
certificate. injury on right

ha.nd and i°racj_ru_.re on ring finger, which is grievous

in iiature ‘ and”:Vi-he ‘ certificate is marked as
EXP–l4.

The host-.u.m.ortem report of Rangappa discloses

account of shock and hemorrhage as a

result of injury and the death is homicidal death.

‘r__’i’he accused are charged for Committing the offence

Section 143. 148, 324, 326, 309 r/W Section 149

of IPC. All the i jured witnesses have supported the

ease of the prosecution and have testified the ass.alu._lti.’py

A. 1 to A5 with cleaclly weapons.

6. The trial Court on 1;hAe»basis”‘of:’_~th*e ‘saidu “~ it

evidence, convicted the A.1 olt’f.eine’é;:3:

pLmishabl_e under Sections 14265,».

Section 149 of IPC. The eony_i¢’f¢.f3’ aeeusleql jail.

7. Sri N.Srini\ia’s:l lo’oun:sel_vappearing for
the appellants’ that the
pr.64/2003;; {ghe appellants
filed tliei. ll judgment in
filed under
S€(1tl()l:i,’39Ll S.P.P. has no objection

to receive’iieiie »said_ c:iocu,I~’nent as an additional evidence.

Thfe”3éi’ qu.a.1″reE.. Since the quarrel hasVtta;1«:en

§3la.c:e ssr.:_c:1c_ic:1:1Iy, the question of sharing

i.l”.E.'{‘.€%k]’ii.(.>1.”l by all the accused and invoking 49 Qf

EPCI 1’n;zj_: um’ behj1,1st. anti p1*c)per.’.__ ‘I’he ..i-f1dix,ridti’a1

ez«1e.h of the aetrused have 110 be consideredttteetpiarately to –. L

Mjtxtriggt-;r theilr guiit. Since the i_n_e’ivde11.t has’ t,al;en}:i)1aee In

at s:’s1’ai” of «::11..1z;1.r:'”el, I1;1L -Section 300 IPC

wouid 2′:§);)}y to the fa(:i:E3″c)f.tfh.e’ease EH1, each count.

I E. _¥.:=1’wt11{§ _i£_1st2§,’:t1_1.eels-ejfit is A.2 who assaulted

the CitI'{IfitL’£1§5§’:?E11.,RE1i*+:§,§Et})pei yxfit’1’r-.a,Ve}e=£Jb on his head. In the

(.’.\»’i(1£_%1.1}-‘A<.:*,"f1"1.e1'e"i.$._é1=.}51*e_i?a1;iCatiOI'1 that Accused N0s.1

s

tsmd ;:s.§Sz1;é1t.,crc1 .t.1'1e "c1«;e.{:ee1sed Rangappa. The post–

'_ :'1'1.<.j1"{j:.:1.";'i__L£*<:pc'31_"t""sE'mw§3 1:1'1at there is only one injury on

'?'1'.1'L"'?' '§1i'('-';'?"E;.§IL'." fl

""f%'j'_l'1.:3E <.:}\re1't,~:;»u:t. of A.I against the deceased

1'1’e~~vs~:§%i.’;:t_x.'(‘l. In that View of the mattter, the fact that

“‘.”X¥,1 2.._é.fi=4r~«;2112li.€-?(“3 the deceased does Ilot appear to be an

rs}-tr(iii.’>Ev vers__-_:i<')u. It to be held that Al alone

:=1S:£~;2411:E€%:(i i1"%(f tiletvased. P.W.1 is assaulted by A1,

-10-

Sv;r(:11’01’1 134 of ii”(‘,T and to pay fine 01′ Rs.’.2.(}()O/M E?z:1v(T’i’]_’.””–i.I1

.’~

dc1″zu.1Et to 1.111(‘:1L%1’g(.> SI. for :1 period of 3 z1’1o1111’1s.s. fg=’;’1″—-<.*_2f.1 :.1_s._.§' Vi-

§_{1'it?\='OLJ."-3 i11j1.:1'i{..=..=a 1.0 §"'.\?\!'.<s.4~ zmd E} sep;'i1*atv;?1_\~'. ()1j1..§2_£i{:L1Vc{i1.1141t..

z\.§. A3 2-.:1'1(E .»'\:3 arc' sac-1"'1[c1"1cc-;c'l to L'.11-V1(i1’i0(:l of 6 1’11()111E’15’s a1’1<'¥ £0 p;.1_\_:' i'i1'1€é'—g)§r.f'{s.5()O}k'; 'C'£:£L'.11'.:j in
('l_ ‘1″1::.i;’1t.1’i1-5 for M1

E”i1:11c’v;;~ pL111is1’12.:EJ1c %.:11dc>1f’ S§’1(“1iE.3i”1 i.3’i:i»’l;1’/\%v._S€-(‘Ii<')1'iA 3%? of IPC.

11 is s1.1l.i)1"1'1i11.cr(:¥ that all E'121.vC ;-1l1'(?z-icky

!*S(.'1"\.-'('.Cl 1119 .~"s<211}.vc11'1s3g'(§…’ ii”. ‘i”1; i’~.~.+V sofi’ the :;1CcL1sc?d ‘c11′(?
di1’€’.'(‘,1.(,’C1 10 113% s(;.1′”~ l”;’E.’VC”–§fc);’i”ki1§2ri{‘h(311 1′):’§1_\ra.1i:211t of 1’1’1’1€1.

TE’1€§Wél§’),})Cf{‘i1 ‘}’.1_H”(‘..’;’.sf\-‘V{¥f’1 ;’):f1’i-1&y”i11 tc>1’11’1..~’+ :15; i11dic;1t(3d

E-1§’)()\”t’.

Sd]*
JUDGE

Sd/-‘
JUDGE