IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BA!§GA§.§Ci'QE'E..:« _
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY QFAUGus':3ik%2oé3%%k % k
BEFORE . &
THE HON'!-BLE MR. JUm1cE"rz..ArsAN:jA
QRIMLNAL REVISIQN PgTIf1*1c>N1s:o.99«4oF:.>oo§
BETWEEN:
1 REVAPPA S/Q BASA'i?P_A _ 'V
AGEI) Aeonxjr 53 YEARS,
2 RAJAPPA 5:11., 1; "
s/0 REVABPA . - =
AGEQ A1§QUT«:35 VYEAI-2V__ * "
3 sHAsH1r$ii;§?A_V_':'«.% =
AGED,Vp.BouT..32-.$EARgL, * '
4 N.AvEEz§A '-
3 /0 C G Mamzsnaavps
~ ._A"Gf;--I) ABOUT QSTEARS,
" AI_.L.AR.é;'R)'@.cHoMANAHALL1
PETYPIONERS
(By srz: A N mj;--p;~5iA KR'iSI~INA, ADVOCATE)
V -AND ;
H " " ~ .T % STATE OF' KARNATAKA
_ BY YAGATI POLICE
"REPRESEN'l'ED BY THE STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR men comm' BLKLDXNG,
BANGALORE. RESPONDENT
” -4 :(ié=53} Sri. H.i-IANUMANTHARAYAPPA, HCGP}
CR’L.RP FILED U/S397 85 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TE) SET
ASIDE THE JUBGMEIWF OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
PASSED BY ‘THE C.J.{SR.£)N) 85 JMFQ, KADUR’ IN C.C.NO.
JOHAR 85 ORS. Vs. MANGAL PRASAD 85 e
the Supieme Court has held; ‘% ”
*9. Rem’sz’onal junsdic:i5};%e qrf the e T
Court in terms of A redC3_\«_o IUith A
Section 401 of the
is limited. The High mpoe: out
any error of
Trail Judge. It any
relevant V_ of its
irrelevant
entered into the merit of the
mcztterf ‘R. gtpon the credentialily
of It sought to be re-
czppfecidfe whoIe evidence. One possible
soiighito be substituted by another
V 5. sfiexfifof what has been held in the above
* ~ Lit is to be seen whether courts beiow have
ecozximifted any error of law in appreciation of evidence;
‘T ‘taken into consideration irrelevant evidence arid
“relevant evidence has been left out of consideration.
rg’ (A?-\_,~¥ é’\A*’Cjlx*
court and the appellate court, this court ~ 2
appreciate evidence to arrive at its own 1
In order to appreciate the efibove’
necessary to narrate the case of ”
It is also necessary to refer’ ‘e.tid
recorded by the courts: b_eiow;””‘V’ 2 ‘V V’ . ‘ V’
3. 11; is the case of 1/2005 at
about 9.00 PW3 –
C.G.Eshwa1€%se)ise; 3-‘ Naveen regarding
to pacify the
quarrel. > ‘*’ia”(x:used No.2 came and
assa1ll’£’3d_ off ‘?.h’1′”g h and mouth of PW–1 with
‘sickle we cslgsed grievous and simple injuries to
I, 3 and 4 also assaulted PW–1.
A PW-A2-4.._Vi11@r~:r’.e:~aed and saved P’W–1 from the hands of
‘ ” the same day at about 12.00 a.m. PW8 –
. §1*,_Shekm’appa treated PW-1 – Nijalingappa in
Govemment Hospital at Beerur and found following
” “injuries:
(1) Lower incisor was broken, bleeding present.
W ‘ $:L_&__,_Qg.«,~W{fli_/.
with the handle of sickle and caused injury M
thigh and an injury to his teeth, as a d
teeth was broken. His efidence
from evidence of other V
c.e.eshwarappa, PW4 ~ 1 –
Ramesha. d. A M H
16. Adverting,_to by learned
counsel for between
medical it is necessary to
state __ __ assault one of the lower
incisors er» and there was bleeding.
The Jexnied for accused has contended that
injuries on the mouth of WW1.
corresponding external injury it is
V that one of teeth of PW-1 was broken
‘ eissault by accused No.2. The absence of
injury on the mouth of PW-1 is not sutficient
” draw an inference that PW-I was not at all assaulted
by accused. P’W-1 has deposed that accused No.2
assaulted on his left thigh with a sickle. PW~»1 had
fxj ‘\ ‘
II
The criminal revision petition is accepted’
The impugned order as it relates to; V K ”
accused 1, 3 and 31 for
Sections 324, 326 1’/W. Section
Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 vA_rv§51T’ences
punishable under r/W. Section
34 IPC. The 3′ relates to
conviction of . punishable
under Sections’ veonfrmed, however,
sentence of “an ofience punishable
under aside. The sentence of
accused”No.2 for an offence punishable under
scarier; 325% isconfirmed.
3 mm ampyo:–th-B order.
._ ed to send back the records along
Sd/–
Judge