me THE HIGH comm" or I-(ARNATAKA AT 8ANG.?9_'4ijV-V:"3tFiE',.'V'»~., H
OATEO THIS THE 15*" DAY OF DECEMBER,?20:;Oij_j. ' '
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE .1.,.NA'RAYA1\ztA '~ "
CRIMINAL APPEAL NG~,j.'399v.O'F
BETWEEN:
STATE BY S.R.NAGAR POLICE,
BANGALORE. ; ._'
" j : APPELLANT
(BY SRI.A.v.RAM_Aa{-R1S:fin§_A,v E_:GG_R) ,
A..L\E_..D_: , ....
1. POOCHIKANNA @'*RA.»..}AY@"'YR_,,
SHIVAKUMAR,« V "
S/O. SR1 MuNJ:Y.APPA, .~ ,
AGED ABOUT :"--w:>,7 YE'ARS_,
__NO.72,G_;, 3""? CROSS, V
I<1.S.G'AROsEN,~S.R.NAGA'R,
=.BANGALO_RE,
2. Smf.R'GSH'RA,,,},
WIFE OF VI_S\'I'v'!1_.NAT!-IAN,
AGED "ABOUT-:R 46 YEARS,
NQ.50, 33" CROSS,
_ R.,s,G.ARoEN,
* S«,F_<..r~jAt1jAR, BANGALORE.
L5"
._" SM"f,%.PREMEENA @ PRAMEELA,
WIFE OF SRI POOCHIKANNA,
AGED ABOUT : 24 YEARS,
A NO.720, 3*" CORSS,
:<.S.GAROEN, S.R.NAGAR,
K
BANGALORE.
: RESPONDEESiT:S~V--VV
(BY SRI.N.SRINIVAS & M.R.Si-IASHIDHAR, ADV.)
CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(I) & (3) CR.P.C. BY TifiE'O'S.%:FATiEvVi5.OP§ u
FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'B_LE (_:OU'RT.T_"MAYV"8E~V._V A
PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE ANf'APPEA.L'4AGA1Ns'.r._TH'E
JUDGMENT DT,27-7-2007 PASSED BY THE Ae'oL;r;s1,&~P';o,"
1, BANGALORE CITY A ACQUITTINGV - * T-HEN
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR OFF'ENCES'._ P,Iu/.S.,3.i33
R/W.SEC.34 OFIPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN %.e’E’A’aIo#’VVArAsao eEs’ERVE FOR
JUDGMENT AND COMING ON”nFO.R BEFORE
THE COURT TODAY, COURT DELIV_EVi’-EEVD THE«.§EO.L;tjQ_’;NING:
Vn%§ufi§%ENTYCyOflO
This appeai-of acquittal dated
27.7.2007 file of the Sessions
Judge & Fast” for the offence
punishabfetinder Section 34 of IPC.
datOeciv1.7.200S was made by the PW-
who”is-i’thCe’v-Tg3oviV_icej-constable aiieging that in connection
crime”‘—No;2§4’1’72005 for the offence punishabie u/s 392
O43′[if-:>’V:(“:A,”‘poiicteuacoristabie PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 went in Search
“‘a:c’cu:sed and also to recover the property. After
that the accusjd was present at Maremma
temple, they went to the spot and in the course of arrest,
PW—9 sustained injuries and he was treated by the doctor
for the fracture. It is alleged, accused E\los.1gi:o,y 3
obstructed for discharging their official duty.
made by the PW-9 has been registere.cj”%:l”.,.g;v1*]’_,:Cri:ne’i._V7~..
E\!o.143/2005 by S R Nagar Police Staltiohialfjv
3. On behalf of the prosecution,’PW:1″7-
have been examined of which police
officials who were drafted _a:i”«2VfesV’_’bc.vith’e\:.a’CCbUSed No.1 and
PW–}. 8: 2 ate the to the incident and PW–5 is
the doctor who…t4reate’dVP.\lV-i§”‘:—-
4. ,**.The case AofVt’he”-accused is one of total denial.
2 wh’o'”are the alleged eye witnesses did
notl”s.Lip.port…f’t.heuu’prosecution and they were treated as
:’=vThVostile. A *-PW;=3 the woman constable who accompanied
l”4″_the=c’omplaiha’nt. She has deposed that she has arrested
and produced before the Investigating Officer.
{ ,
6. PW–4 is a police constable who accompaniedf’P.W~
3 in arresting the accused Nos.2 & 3. PW»? &
police constables.
7. Therefore, the only mat’eiieA_l_l
prosecution could place reliance evide~nc’e V’of”PW–5, 3′
PWs.7 to 9. No doubt PW:–8~..§-L thle”‘pros}ecution
by saying that when an arrest the
accused No.1, acc_ase£d:yI’*No:=.._A1 with a sickle
and as a result PW–9 who is the
accused No.1 was
hiding in the’Ah.o’uSe,’ to open the door.
He_vVcame”w’itlii..a attack which caused injury
to°h_is.Ael.blou:_1andv:’accused Nos.2 8: 3 held his leg to facilitate
‘J*,_accuse~d:”l\i.o.i’ to»–_ru_n°’away. In his cross–examination he has
rtdeposed ‘had told the doctor at Sindhi Hospital that
<_'theijnjui'y«..was caused by attack of the accused by sickle.
The evidence of PWs~7 to 9 is to be verified from
complaint as per Ex.P8 and the wound certificate as per
<
of mind when he gave complaint and there was no anxiety
in him, Therefore, the evidence of PW-9 cannot be bellieved
and PW–9 has not disclosed truth before the :_.
10. Ex.P4 discloses that the com~;3la.:ifiianlt:
assaulted with knife as per the history
is the evidence of the doctor be_fo.re the V:coL_Jr’t1tAh_a«t…police
have sent sickle to him for h_cross~exa;’m_ination’.”«
11. In the light ofifthé-_h ahbvolvvejginconsistent and
uncorroborative..eviideh}::e offchlelprosecution, as rightly held
by the trial1″co’urt,’ has not proved its case
for the alleged ‘offerces. WA/l’s~~–:’le concurring with the order of
a.<j:'c;'t'.-lttai-recorded byxflthetlrial court, this appeal will have to
be d'isrhi_ssec:l_"fa:n'd'itvis accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-s
fudge