Nagabushana Reddy vs State By Gowribidnur Rural Police on 10 August, 2009

 

Ci'}.A. 1485/2004
IN THE HIGH COURT 01:' KARNATAKA AT   y
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY or  d T' 1

BEFORE t   so   '  
THE HONTSLE MR.JUSTIC1§'a.:S.j,l5AOfi.3*i+tki§'U12ft7'3';A."'V 1'
CRIMINAL REVISION  No} 1435
BETWEEN    V'

1. Nagabushana Reddy _a "
S/o Krishna Rec1dy__  ,
Aged about'25_ years b d " 
2. Bhask_ar'Redtdyf. '   
S/0 E€asa,Rec1dy= » é   
Aged about years  "   PETITIONER/S

Both 'are __resxide11ts_V of Kotape Viiiage,
I-hnduipyura Ta1uk',«r__a'-Péradesh.

ts;-:. Vishnu Mamjyeva Ass£s,g'Aai}.)

   V      

State  C}owribid.zfIuvr__RuraI Police
Reppy VQSPPA _  "  .

High CCU-ft of   RESPONDENT/S

‘v[S_!’i. Sa’dfn’sh”–f:{; HCGR]

=¥***=i=

_ ‘I’his~.CriminaI Revision Petition is filed under Section 397

‘~ ._ 3’/’W 4}s01″C;’.P.C praying to set aside the judgment of conviction dt.

V” passed by the OJ. {Jr.Dn} & JMFC., Gudibanda in

Z ‘ C’.’C.N_c:«; 93/2000 and also the judgment dt. 16.1.2004, passed by
V S.J., K0131′ in CI’l.A.NO. 43/2002.

Cri.A. 1485/2004

the rivalry between PW.3 and Shivareddy, stiI§i;’–~niore

arises in the case of the prosecution. t

9. Apart from this, the prosecuti’orrVt:’that

an amount of Rs.4,000/- was snatched. from an
amount of Rs.7,000/- was front incident

took place in the nightVa._tfiabo1Ait it is on the next

day that a mahazar was_in.:.this”vgeerzard”;.h why there was a

delay in expiained by the
prosecution; statement of the accused

is concehrnevd.’ upon the recovery of the
chopperironitheafhouse’~..ot”‘.iKccused No.2 and it was seized
underthe ..FW.2 is an attesting Witness for the

V. zandemployee of PW.3. He is an interested
requirement of law that an independent
personhas present to prove the recovery of the weapon at

‘the instavn’e_e.vof an Accused. Thereby, a serious doulot arises-
iwithvsregard to the recovery of M03 at the instance of

_’C.Accused No.2. Even an amount of Rs.7.000/– and Rs.4,000/-

Wwas not recovered at the instance of the accused. It was seized

>4

V, ,.,shalv-the rcfuncied to the’ accused.

ll

Crl.A. 1485/2004

implication of the accused in the crime and~«~’t.h,erefo7re, “the

doubt that arises has to go to the benefit 3These7.,

all aspects have not been considefed'”by ll

also the lower appellate Court an’éI.Vtlfi§lrlefore;’ my lviewvlllthe
conviction and sentence ordelreld-w..by the .Cou_rt’s illegal
and perverse. Hence, I answe1fpI?olint. No.1 in thelaffilnnative and

proceed to pass the followlin.g:l’–

The alloxiéed. The conviction of the
petitionersll for-vl.j’t.he under Section 394 IPC and the
sentencethereorl..afel.’Aset”a.si’d’e. They are acquitted of the said

charge. uTheil9″‘b.ail’ blonds are cancelled. Fine, if any deposited

Sd/-

IUDGE