High Court Karnataka High Court

Gowresh vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Gowresh vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2009
Author: N.Ananda


–u- – u–7_n’:V’wv- vv tu-Inlwr-ul-|r\.I-I F”ll\IFV \.\.JUl¢’ ‘Jr KAKNAIAKA WIG” C

Cri.P.No.4%§[ 2603

IN THE HIGH mam’ ox? KARPIATAKA mt I} L’

mmn mm mm 3375: my oyammgfi ‘?{.?€’3’§.9 ‘A Z ”

Tmausmm Bm.JUS’Ti§1%-aEb:i§,;KNA;I§?:§.g¥’v = V’

Criminal
BETWE EN:

aeownm ‘
syn: mm mmvammav. 1

new mom 3:2:

}.{3R§YI3RI{VEIR__ _ 4_ %
am I)GI3£3.€aU§.I;#;E€3£’E.¥f1fVIL.Li§;c”§E V
cnaznmn-3; *1:§.L:.m ‘L A _ Q’

..PE’fl’1’IQNEE

3? :43: ‘ mvacnmj
mfi s’m*.£’E~z::s§

_.E.EPRESE’:1Fi’£E}} BY mm. ….. V4 »
. Gc* ymmm

E!AHG}¢’a,L§)RE; _ ..nmv<::n*::-me'?
._ ABDL.S.P.P.}

um m mm) zz',rs.439 CR.P.C: FRAEING m
gamma ma mmmmx an mu. IE $.f.3.fi€3.-fijfiifi Imam

*7f:,»-[:33-~ ma FEE «:2? mg mm, as 3.5., cmmmm.
.1 £i.'iR5.fi(};§§}O& or scaanmm mum ymztam, wmw w
mg mg aware: 572135.392, am MW 34 03-me.

PEEEIG3 C0]&$"G GR" FCIR ECJEDERS 'E13 DAY, 'IE3

nlmnmmmm ms mmzzwmag

031333

The pehitianer 53 arrayed as mm Rani

IIMSSIEQOS ragatwcd far afimm
Sweetie' am am & 201 ma with in 34a£1.é5;Ac,§=

2. I have hmrd rm for L’
mm .«da1.s,ms. fizar the brief A

facta as rmlaci wmch
are rfisary fir fizlinwxs:

The    husband of
amumi   M13 is the
%  The dwwed was

w’orHnJg’ gm Va. “iE{.E..B. fie wag a habfiual

A. .,..,….. mm wum or unauxwnxn men count or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA men COURT

amnmaza, n pzmita m.o2.2ms, the: dwmsed

&&&&& and the aaughm af

was appeaintad. in K.E.B, Tha _

I m come mm in drfi mm ma
‘ We ami fl . Therefzzare, the pafifianm
L & mm) and accused No.2 deciiexd to eliminate
ac that thay could lesad a pea-mfifl lifeu On

3 “{I>4.D2.2fi%, at about 8.00 P.l*:¢i.,, the pefifinnar an-gbd

the decwafi tn fieath while a<.mm¢d Rm? had

………–.m.m mun Luum ur KAKNATAKA f-HGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR1

C'ir1..P.N§..46~88,f 2905

attemptw to makc it appmt as a case caf auicigig be
mum} sfiulafinn af difi by amused

.3. 111:: mmfigatfien dwummm

failcrwing i.'z*.1m'1m.' "mam mm'
petitinner-aecusad Bani: 1 ' . .

{1} accused Nan}. in
NCL2 had mafiega fake
174 Cr.P.C§, in»? that the
dsaath of éwjgig ésathg.

:2) accused HQ. %
mxflmaien
aztmi ‘I*i1¢”wit:£i&s’a%a mmcly,
s.w.14é.mmnaa%;kv%ik;%%A zmmam
c.w.15~¢’.:2§Rm.-.naa¢3:f’ of the
amw,a,,–1}5 gmmamm
af the dacaased
The,» and aim mm 5.

befam the amurrwmc.

L they had am: that the
..: ‘ <«__ §3..€O¢i135L'iV__A;i§'3,$» aims! ts death and tha
W119 was '€h$:£"€: all along had

f."3–} ia5L"' r:yInz1 mpg was flaw an the

an 'at

V ………u-an» n-mm Luuxr OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH cousr

Cir P: A 933:8

4. Th: Imam ecxunsezi far the petificanaz” would

submit that these cfitmmznms cla mat

prizna ficie case against the pctzitionen reg

undm Section 3132 mi’ E.F.(IL

5. ‘The.- cfitzumtams

bearing an the nstzcurrersce. mt
inmnsistcnt and ;fhé§~efom, at
thh stage, “K nut tfire is an
prima ffacie ofibnee uzfler
%ct1’ar: stated herein

Judge