High Court Karnataka High Court

Kamalawwa @ Kamalabai vs Pundalik Channappa Waded on 2 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Kamalawwa @ Kamalabai vs Pundalik Channappa Waded on 2 July, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Nagaraj


IN ‘ME HIGH COURT ()1? I«L§RNAT:é.K;5*g_’R:-..j: f _

CIRCUIT BENCH x%’If.C?€U1»F3@s1%:§2%»4 %

{DATED Tms THE and Vaaxfjoia’ \jT:I:.*z”f::2§:iu§~–..¢i”i~

P’F§E’–SEN{F’v- .

THE) HONBLE MR. J:1:’+:?if;4

SI;1€;_¥{€&§1aiaié.»’*§§%a{t._”§E,.§%iafi1aiéLbai,

w/0 Saymaling Gfiiasaxzgi,

Aga majar, ‘escc:._ag.{‘i(:x1itur€,

r{?’9:>aE1da1’agi9 {

582, gist. 8:33;:-L.’*. …P€i;1L3eI1€3″*

A _(E3y’i:”§::i’i.§’Lia;1*se}f:avarc1}1311 Rixialipatfi, Adv as
.._A1fiic§3;1is; igufiae )

§;…’é.\1.._.9.;..51.: % %

* S§.PundaHk Channapya waded,

x Age majm”, Gas: figicnflture,

2. E3:’i.Bapu:*a.§: Chamiappa Wafieci,
Age major, Sec: figiculture,

3. Sri.Amag<3}:1ci Ar;.na3:a3i Wadeci,
Age magar, ace: Agricuiture,

u

kl

Ali are r/ 0 Da:{1<;ia1"agi,
Tg, 85 Distfiijapur.

4. The State of Karnataka,
B}; its S.P.P.,
Advocate (}€:I1era}’s Oifice, _
High Court Building, ‘ ” V V _ ‘
BaI1gal0re-:36Q 001. “.~.,F<%;$por;:<:ie11ts

(By Sri.Sach'm M.h3'Tai§aja1i;A§i§:. _1?a :}:2;%1 to 1&3
Smt.Armradha M.Desaj,"A§ic§1.S}?_.?,; for R4)
This cr1.R_;:9. is §i1ed- L;;,zs..,39*z%"r/k§;:%'401 of cr.P.c.
praying thatVfj3i'.'$;1iT£)§:'L1f£A A;3v1::=':§.§sa":<1i 1:0 36%: asida': the

ju&w1f:71Wi;1g:«

GRDER

‘fi’}:;,Vi;«;._ “1′:’:9§*i.’?$i01″; is directed against the order sf

% § acguitaai’ passed in S.C.E’€G.10é/0%. The facts cf the

:p~3?(:is ec:L:§:%;%>:}. case disciasa that 13’W- 3. on i2G.6.99 arauné

heard the 139156 :33” quarrel at the hO’L1S€ sf 0:15

VT “§{%dafli§:g. She gaes is the scans arad. ffzds that 5%,} ‘£5;

cg//.

A3 were assaultizlg PWJZ with club angi ._§’§¥l

intervanes. She was aiso assaizvxltsfig wiffi’ “c1§;_;b ‘a:1’ti e:xé;’ . _

PWS 1 and 2 received the griéxcliéé
certiiicaitss; are nzarked at ‘ ‘A V’

2. in dealing’ other
ciubbed cases, we facts of the casa
and caunterfgn iiiéld that the trial

ceurt g’£__«::12eiyf_ §.;1_é_1*c:.11ci:3I-iiig the connnon judgxnent

in both_ ifié’._’ca_s§«:s. =. k1,V__’S..C.N0.106/99 convictions are
yendefed’ to S()n:1″é. ‘0:_f’ gaccused for dfiferent offences.

I:1§S”.C.N0: <§O, t]:16 accused are acquitted. Hence,

petition is fiiad by the Cauipiainant against

, gag acguiaugx;

” After hearing the p€fiiU:{)1″1€I”‘ armi £115

., ” mgpbiidents, We 83:3 of the Gpimm’: that it is jug: a;:::.d.

“” j§r§§6r that the revisian 3110111123 be Converisd girlie appeai

” by €X6}7’CiSi§”lg inherent pmver under Ssctiox} 482 of the

4/

“:r.P.C. Accordingly, the revision is t1*eated…;;1s’__’

appeal.

4. PWS 1 a:::_1(i 2 are A4 andlgx,-2:1fsI’c,%§o;-1{;se;§§9.(:–%T T

A1 and A2 are PWS 1 anc1~’.5- SLQNQ, ifhé
weu:1ci <:art.i:fi.cates at E}xs.D1 éfiat this
'L0 fighting the iI1jL1ri<:::~*g'£;i[*s:' gnd A2 in this
case who are 4}_3':'2'-i5$ 1.06/99, their
presence agfzd Since in the
(:c)I;ne;é§:gfe,§ heid, in a state of
q1.1an’e};”–t}jf.e’. in that view, similarly

in this _casé}7:.’1_$o» the gssééiujt has taken place in a state

.’ V. “G? ‘£3116 0§ééi*t§”é;cts attributed to A1 and A2. No

ox}i:::?€ f{%:’%3V:’_i.~attribut.ed ‘:0 A3. A1 and A2 have

a.sS::n_.31€.¢::2~ 3 aginci 4 and caused gievous ixxjuries. in

‘i,’i;g§§:* {§f’vt.§§1e avidance cf FWS 1 and 2 coupieti with th-3

ix: Weuzaé Certificates, it is to be heid that A}

A2 are guilty 0f the ofiefices punishabie unéer

V Seztztion 335 and 334 I’/W 34 uf EPC for causing géevous

%/

i1’1jL1ri_€s to PW’s Ti. 31151 2. The: acquittal of A3,iS. “‘

and pmpar. A1 and A2 are in detention_

daya. ” ‘he said period is imposed aS_:$€I1tiE§Z{1CE’.._.: 23,1»

A2 s’¥1a.i.§ pay a stairlpensatipn Of “f~?$’.”1(),()f)_(,’.’!;’.-‘. veéichj ‘fa

P\Ei’s 3. and

The regstxy this
revision petiti0n_as apps-:a 1_..:~.. appeal is
dispcmed

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/–

IUDGE