Lakshmana Nayaka @ Lakshma Nayak vs Nanjungud Rural Police on 13 June, 2008

cm. A. No.'72§--112005

IN THE HIGH coum 05' KARNATAKA AT BANQA3;i}I§E: '.j* f 

DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY 0? JUNE__'i£.3:(.)8iVA_D.'V. '% D '

PRESENT;  V _ _ _x
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE  " 
  % V  
THE HONBLE M1%m.Dsr1D~E V§§gs;i=:xDmiAI>URAr§
CRIMINAL   [Cl

BETWEEN

LAKSHMAISLA NAYA:.rA~@ ufixsansz; NAYAK-._"  V
3/0 HUTCHA NAYTAK V '  D , *  D.
AGED A801}? 47 YI'' SPF, ~

HIGE co:I.R*r..3LDG,,  _
* ',.  RES?C}NDEN'I'

BANGALORE.  ~

_ {By S:;§.f§.'f{.JA{}Hf;\?, 'SI'?-II)

ms ..c"m,.AV firm-2D {J/3.374 CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE

" ?}§'i°.PE;(LAN¥ AGAINST THE JUDGMENT D'r.2.2.o5 PASSED BY THE 9.0.,

 EAST TRACK COURT-IV, MYSORE, IN S.C.NO.208f03 - couvxcmsze THE

._  A_§:éEL.L.A;Nr}AccUsED FOR THE OFFENCE Pm/s.3o2 OF' IPC AND

 __ D  sragvrgsicrm HIM Do {JNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE AND my A FINE
" '  o«EVR's.5oo/-1.D.,m PAY FINE, To UNDERGO s.1. rem: one MONTH.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL PLAWHG BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED,

" COMING ON FOR PROROUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THLS DAY,

PACHHAPURE. J2, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

 



Crl. A. No.72a«,r2oo5

JIID%H'1'

The appellant has challenged his   

for the ofibncc under Section 302 IPC 

Track Court, Mysore.

2. Sans unnecessary dct:z_e_1:iilS-, _ mg  version

unfokied during the mm is   "  

The accustsgi  -I-the   Lakshmi.'
Their marxiagegc      prior to the incident.
0111; of the  "two....3§.9),,_ Qn---~ 'éh't,~..PS§I (PW.16)
apprehended and produced   the CPI (¥'w.17)
amested him. He  the   (Ex.P.I1) and
the opinion  "fits gattttzkes to the foiensic
laboratory.     he filmd the

chaxgcsheét  ' -t

3.   Vtzfithe trial, the prosccutfion fled the

:..ec*i;1cnc;:f'3'£>fE!5:\R'r5_.1 t:A§"1'?....9¢z1d got marked the documents Exs.P.1

  1 to 5. The statement of the accused was

  313 Cr.P.C. He has taken the defcnca of

  detiial #1133 not led any evidence in his defence. The

  n on appreciation of the matcxial on rcconi has

It  the accused] appellant and aggncv' ed by the conviction

  'T . . _ 2 t é.£fd"Séntcncc, he has approached this Court in appeal

54



Crl. A. No.728(2005

(PW5) informed his magic (the brother of the deceased) (PWJ)
about the death of his mother by an assault by the  So

as regards the accused suspecfimg the fidelity and 

deceased, all the witnesses have consistently   hthe: K  

efibrts made by PWs.6 and 8 and  
compromise and the accused ever;  wast
assaulting the deceased and the term?  ofth
the children by stating that 'the    with
poison at the instance of  7 me none else
than the son  t   the accused.
They consistently'    of the accused in
abusing    the fimes and there is
nothing  and though they are the

children, their- "'tg;az{&§eom1mmmd by the evidence of

'PjWs.1, .2§,A'5, ~93  f§}x.t:r.1 E the conuadjction got marked in

'the?pfVtFw.9 pertaining to the illicit mlationship of the

 The theory putforth by the accused in the

  of this witness reveal that they are not

" " ':'4AC'iivs§n;.1:§11g  the suspicion of the accused as regards the

  of the deceased. So tak1n' g into consideration the

 "cm_3,si§atent, cogent: version of ail these witnesses, as mgaxde the

L



- 11 -
Crl. A. No.7_2§3I2()05

mnttve putforth, we am of the considexed  
prosecution is ab}: to establish this cincumstancedd    " " . 
8. Though the prosecution A' (Va 
accused (PWJ5), who stated  the."Pw.5 went to the  dead body of
his mother and the':ej_xt   the neck. This
evidence of  of PW.7, who had
gone to the  hearing the murder of
her mothcriveaxhe   H body in the pool of blood. It

is PWX5, who   (PW. 1), who came and thereafter

  the~hev;fiiie31ce of PWs.5 and 7, except the accused and

$4;

 



-13-

Cr}. A. No.72_§j;g0O5

soon last the accused in the company of the  

dead body of their mother, when they Ictu1ncd'F l§o:n_cV,: on   

presence of PW-5.5 and '? in the morn:i:.;1'g"is' «xiotsin 

fact that the deadbody was found   is 

disputed. In the circumstances,  is amfslc to"

prove that the deceased   'thc  of the
accused, a duty is cast  explain the
circumstances as 'V   of the Indian
Evidence Act.     under Section 313
Cr-P-G do¢sss..n<iiv and therefore, an
adverse infifincnce   which further s  the

circumstances  :by the prosecution as mgards

tho homicidal  'rinotive and the deceased last seen

v'fo_ge:tA}1c1_7R:i1.z   of the accused. If we consider each of

thesis-._   they form a strong chem' whx:h' is

V  Vconsistctzt  tfie guilt of the accused and inconsistent Wall' his

 . cc. "We do not find anyth1ng' to dlsb" e11cvc' thc

   brought in the mud' once of the wimsscs referred

  V     



Crl. A, No.'728/2005

we answer Point No.1 in the ncgafive and proceed to 

following:

 

 

The appeal is dismissed, 

sentence of the appcilant by {ha  *i'rial:fo_1T%  I

offcncc under Section 302 IPC.

Sri.Somashek.ar   {_31ma' e, assisted
the Court for the   Rs.5,0{)0/-. The
fee of the Amiciis   the State.

Sd/...
Judge

 sax»-
 .....  Judge

.