-31m
IN THE men comm' or-' KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE mm DAYQF MARCi¥i;~ $'f2€O§aAV { j A ~
------------------~--~-------------"' R E S E ""
THE HON'BLE MR.JU'S:H.(_3EV 5
THE HON'BLE
cmmm Azpémz m7
State (if .
PSI Raichur ' . .
Raichur; L % A % *
f; (BY SRI~.suBHAvANIs1NGH, s.1=-.9.)
S/o"=SVri'.Kondi Yellappa,
about 29 years,
A' Agriculture,
" 'R./o Merchad
Talukz Raichur.
k A A " Sri.Raju,
S/o Sri.YeIlappa,- -
25 years,
One: Agriculture,
R/0 Merchad, Taluk: Raichur.
3. S1-i.Yellmpa,
S/o Sri.Gouruma,
Aged about 61 years, >
Ooc: Agriculture,
R/o Merchad,
Talukz Rafichur.
4. Sri.Choud:_1 @ _
S/o "
Aged about 24 yegfm,
R/o Merchad, '
'!'a1uk:Raéechu_r. . '
5. % *L; l
S/o
Aged amt as
R/o«Yeldaap1.uf',V.
Taluk: ._ _ " .
é_
. we
l' 51 years,
' 'R/o_ Méerélxad,
Tali.tk:' "Raichur.
" _ 3 . . . . RESPONDENTS
iBf1sm.p.pRAsANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1
T0 R6.) ‘
i*fi#-
This Criminal appeal is filed under Saction 3’78
(1) 85 (3) Cr.P.C. praying to grmt have to file an
appeal against the judmant dated 16.10.2006 in
S.C.No.69/2006 on the file of the Add}. Sessions
-3…
Judge and Prwiding Oficer, F.T.C–III, Raielmr,
aequitting the zmpondenmwaecneed Nos. 1, 3,5
6 for the offence punishable under ”
148, 307 read with Section 149 IPC
N032 and 4 punishable under v_’i43,jj143,’*« ._
324, 307 read with Section ‘
This appeal eommg’ on fo1;;’~a<im,
SABI-IA!-11'!' J., delivered the _
This appeal by _ against the
Fast Track" i~.fiWVS.C.No.69/2006
dated 1, 3, 5 and 6,
(respehdeete convicted of having
eomae "the Veefieneeh punishable under Seaman'
….. -on 34 and . I of
accused for the said ofienee, accused
S .V 2, V3, 6 are relefi under Section 4 of the
H K 'fl;»S.,F'rel;gatVien of Ofiendean Actand on they urinating' into
with one surety to appear before the Court
S' to receive the sentence whenever called upon
during the period of next one year and that they
"\3"\/3
-4-
shall remain under the supervision of
Ofieer, Raichur during that period.
2. We have heard the 4″
Prosecutor and the *
the r°sP°nd°nt3' .. .. ;
3. The
herein), stood of hawfmg
under Sections
143, 143, 149 IPC and an the
accused 1 reepondenm, pleaded not
gumy aha tried.
prose “cation, examm’ ed Pws. 1 to 11
X m.P.1 to R8 and Mae. 1 to 5.
‘The trial Court, after eonaidenng’ the
of the learned Public Prosecutor and
‘ counsel appearirg for theeocused by a
u mjtxdgxnent apprec:atang’ ‘ dock?-1/xgaents produced before
-5…
it, by its judgment dated 16.10.2006 held4fl:”thle£%:-l–.i:l’i%1’lj\
prosecution has failed to prev._eW1:l_1e ” ‘V
ageing’ t the accused of the
Sections 143, 148, 307 A ipc e t
and held that accused and stand of
having’ committed 2′ Section
324 read with adttdrcfet L d
made available the
11 adduced by the
prosecutlen Court. It is clear from the
– peadimljod uthdltwdund certificate issued by PW-10
in respect of P’Ws.l, 3, 2 md 5
I per Exa.P.3 to R6 respectively, has
‘ ” the injuries sustained by PWIJ and 3
wlere”lsimple in nature. The evidence of P’We.1, 3, 2
ll 5 establish that accused 1, 3, 5 and 6
(respondents herein) assaulted mad caused simple
injuries to the witnesaea FWa.’ ‘1;”‘”3,-M2
However, the material does not show that any of the
w
-15-
injured had sustained any gievous
there ww an intention to cause the
the ofienee was
‘ix: ‘!’ “_\
circumstances, that,
of the murder and feet, . by
P’Ws.1, 3, 2 and 5 the em
Court, on P’Ws.I, 3,
2 and 5 me. committed
Section 324 read with
ed to the fact that
V. between the two groups and
to patios of both the groups md
L th.;”e.egn,:g.;3reee;ustasned by PWe.1,3, 2 and 5 wme
.V, :emtple ” in neture, the trial Court, ineteed of
‘V –‘ the reepondenm 1, 3, 5 and 6 of the
” wefi’e_11<:_e under Section 324 IPC, hm
released them under Section 4 ofthe Probation of
Oifendere Act with a. direction to execute bond for
\§:\_,J..5
..-7-
one year to receive the sentence if theme is
violation of the bond and that they A’
directed to remain under the .. .,
Probation Officer, Raichur,
order was passed on of
\’.\g$. Q, «
one year 1g exqaired 9:1 has
been no violafioh of —
7. we, on re-
PWa.1, 3, 2, 5 and
mo, ma shag: : _ .¢.)f”the trial Court that the
pmaecutixéLnV%% prove that the accused
‘~ ofionoe punishable under
43, 143, 307 read with Section 149 IPC is
imposed upon accused 1, 3,
gnd 5’ (respondents herein) is also justified md
Elbe:-;’Anot call for interfenence in this tipped .
8. On re-appreciation, we find_%t___hat_,the finding
of the ma: Court acquittingaccuaed 2 and 4 is also
.. 3 ..
justified as the evidence of PWs,1, 3, 2 and 5 ‘fines
not disclose any overt-act on their part.
We hold that the judment of A
against accused 1, 3, 5 and 6 ifaéisa
Aeoordmsl’ y. the a1PPeal_ % = %