,f’son_ of’-acc u~-sed,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEP;IiUNG
‘nus DAY,SRL sREEDHAR.RAo,Jirnmnvaksnfree
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENI”*,
One Sunil (deceased)__.is iffieind of”o’npe.i:4_I:V{aI§§ane
who is son of the accused. d’iid_riot:ifiike the
friendship of his son Wiiii-Tiiilfi ._the ground that
the deceased is that his son
would may that regard the
accused was- to keep away his
company ii”ron1:_ however did not heed
to the to have friendship with the
i~:_9’¥..()9-2004 at about 07-30 p.m. the
process4i’on”of”herd Ganesha was being taken out, there
huge gathering in 211} over the village. The accused
the deceased in the procession. The accused again
°%/
4) PW.i to 6 have supported the case of the
prosecution. They testified to the effect regardji:ri§:’–Vt’ire
conversation and verbal quarrel between the accused and
the deceased, assault on the decea.’seid”with s.i’c.i§Ie_bVVy’:ithe”.
accused. The said witnesses are eyed’-._witnes:ses “to’.threi’a
incident. There is nothing eliiciytied ini”the’e-evidence to
discredit their veracity;
5) The “fr_i_a’i_Courtiioi1:i::th.e’-Erasis” ofthe evidence of
eye witnesses” ii}3i(i).StfI10rtem report has
convicted~th’e-Aavcjcusiefdfornit-he io’ffe’nce U/S.302 IPC. The
accused is”:?niappeaI’;.’if.Vi’-
6′)_{i” The factsianci the evidence of eye witnesses
.id.iscI:o«se that,-.h:’e–fore the accused assaulted the deceased
withAsiickieghfthetriei was verbal exchange. The accused
insistedithealdeceased to keep away from the company of
1:1i’si_”‘sion’L”~.The accused arrogantly told the accused that he
i’ have proper controi over his son to see that he
<=E/
the death is caused, we feel that the accused sh0uE._d_ be
sentenced to imprisonment for the period he is;.WL:n'dVe'r,<
detention. The accused is deemed to have ":~;eirve.<jii'tihe.iii_fi
sentence. The accused is to be setzfiiiee'«foifth-iwiiha_ifV"Ii0t
required to be detained in any Qther cia.se';.
8) The fees of AmicVL1sii:’~.Cu.,i’iae i tfijied at
Rs.5,000/-. The State the Amicus
Curiae.
ix/irk/–