N THE H%GH COURT or: KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
oATEo THis THE 20"' DAY OF JANUARY 2010
PRESENT 4VSS
THE HGNBLE t\/|R..JUSTtCE i<.sREEoHAR;fRAo_::[__]
AND _ _ H V in
THE Hoixreis it/:R.iiLisTtci--: s:L§B§:A3H;
CRIMINAL APPEAL Ro,{847i2oo§.. " iv 'A
BETWEEN: S V 3 it it
Jenukuruba Raj-ui
S/o Late Putta.
Con No. 14-46%
Central Prison, V 1 1 S
Mysore. .../APPELLANT
(By Sri. Visi€iyyan"ath" V
as AmictisCurie-e}1'i;__ Q» t_ A
AND:
The StateiofiKyarnataka' it
By the CPt.;--.of Madikeri._Ftor;aii Police -
{By the Ftubiéc P'.ros'eCutoh} ...FtESPO§\§DE§\éT
~ {E9-.é;-i.E{S't.BhayaRi singii see;
A ' V'y:=.Crimina| Appeat is preferred by the
convic&'appe§'.i«aiTt,faccused through the Superintendent, Central Prison.
§\/Eys"ore',yag'ainst the judgment dated: 1.12.2005 passed by the
Sessionsiidudge. Kodagui Madikeri in S.C.No.23/2004. convicting the
'convict/accusediappetlant for the offence punéshabte under Section
-- _ 8_92'ot H30 506 of IPC and sentencing him to underge imprisonment
lfor' éife and to pay a fine of F3ts.2,CtOO:? tiD., of payment of fine to
undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 8 months for the offence under
" ~'Section 302 of H36 and further sentencing him to pay a fine of
Fist £000..-'2 for the offence under Section 506 of H38 SD. of Qayment
of fine he has ordered to undergo Eitigorotis imprisonment for 3
4/
months. At: the sentences of rmprisonment are ordered to run
concurrentiy.
This Appeal coming on for hearing this day. SREEDHAR RAG
J.. deéivered the toliowirag:
JUDGMENT
The materiat facts of the prosecution case discéosed’_.thatV.”‘Qne
Thimma is the deceased, PW-1 is the compiainant..;aridfsonAoi
deceased. On 7.1.2004. the deceased”hAad”visited t-:heilvhcuse’ot P’\N~? 7. V
and was staying there. The accused corfl._es:t_o the house of
demands repayment of loan . Thef deceased takes
exception to the conduct -=’o§’_ accL,i:’;e’dA a’r1ddal_3.usedi hii-n.»A”VAt 7.30 p.:’¥t..
the deceased goes to the sh$o;_p’ot’ on7e::’lbzfari:i_rjr=..Vto purchase beedi. The
accused bearin_g..g;ro.i,ise the deceased. PW~2
is a w1tness_ to’:the.cV_a:ssae.%tl.”‘r._PV\/-2 comes and tells PW~1 about the
incident.” ,vl_3\i’J_-1 atone’=i«ii’t’i:.___’?\r’J’.-3 comes to the scene and later on
giyes’cornpia{rit».,to’t’he Poltceat 1.30 am. in the night. PW~1 shifts the
l de”c’e{ase’d to ..DistrictlV’Hoispitaii Madikeri. from there he has taken to
Mangalore. Deceased succumbed to the injuries
ori.._t2.1’ll’The postmortem report disctoses that the death is on
account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to the brain
and”‘A_«that the death is homicidai. The accused is charged for
l committing an offence under Section 302 of :Pc.
-V V. A’ is Entappealt
9.. PWV2. who is the eyewitness to the incident. has turned
hostile and does not support the prosecution case. PW-1 states that.
on coming to know tron”: PWVQ he goes to the scenve.H{inrd_Vs the
accused with a club and his father lying injured.
have accompanied PWV1 to the scene. however.doesnot’-corroborate
PW~E with regard to presence of accosedpatj. the ttiihe ‘*
when they visited. The evidencoof PVV”‘–tt_i”désclo8_eé:. at’i’theti§rtieg
when he goes t o the scene. theieiccusedii club and
threatened PWV1 that he vvoutd it he reveals
the incident to anybody. projects the said
circumstance the bloodsntained ctub
of A-1 wasreportjhowever. states that
the blovo’dst-atheistigongittfte-cl:u’b;cananot”‘oeVdeterntined. The trial court on
the eee’is_ otithe evidence.4ot’e:ittiVjavj.udicial confession testified by PW~1
coupled with_postmorte’inreport has convicted the accused. Accused
i_ “the evidence of PW–t that he comes to the scene
wivth’F3’t§tv’=i:t3 around 9.30 p.n”:.. the accused was at the scene with
a clubint. his hand and the deceased was tying unconscious. The
aecused states that he has killed his father and he would be kitted if he
reveals the said fact to anybody. It is in the evidence of PWV1 that he
went to the scene along with PW–3. PW-3._ however. does not
R
cowooorztte the extrajttdicrat contesséoh and the presence of the
accused’ at the st_:er’ae t?he;refore ét becomes doubttot to befiteve the
theory of the prosecutéoh that the accused was present fatth-e_tsce:te
and thteetened P’./Vet and made an extra-jttdicéat contessr’ot’.’»by.
threat. fit the saéd circumstance etéminated, there’ts:’a»bsotutety.t_ no.
evidence to connect the accused with th.e_f;ré4m,e’Z’TheV::o.(de-not
cont/éctton recorded is bad in tawy
The appeat ES attowed. Thee—-nttf-e:9″–oet com}§ction..~{s set aside
The accused to be set at tre’e’ttorth=.y_étVtetVif n.’o’tet.fjedu*éred to be detained in
any other case.
Fee of’At e¢Ltst’–va:tttt–a’t;t’i’stttsxéct at es.7,ooo,.~. The State
shati p;a:y”‘tt*te”tee.e. of .A_h”sé.cos Cutitéte.
s§;._
§E§BG;»’§j
Sd/-
JUDGE
–. V ‘ ts? tit wt ._