High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Noor Jan vs Mariyanna @ Mariyappa on 17 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Noor Jan vs Mariyanna @ Mariyappa on 17 September, 2008
Author: Arali Nagaraj
 THE EIGH COURT OF KARNATAIQA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 11"" my OF SEP'i'E§\x$ER 209$:  T % _k

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE :g§.gAL1   j  

 

BETWEEN:

Sm. Near Jan,

W30. Sri. Dastagir Sal},

Aged abouhlg 1»-'ears,.__  _ E. _
R/'atN0'20,2""Cr0ss,"_ '   , 

2% Main, Nanjundeswara_Naga:  ' "
BangaI::>£e;.~:?6Q:-096i._ 1.  °' _j_~_ .§f;Petitic3z1er.

(   

§:t;'iariL§fann3  ;M':1riyappa,
.."/1éige}:.,,3? k}'ears,% «     j «

 A &T.%s:fo.myappa,
 TR;'at'NG..,1"6.,  Main,

 figfijay-a5':;a.nd:3'a1iagar,

'  ,__Banga.iGr§ 4 560 096.

Sritiigéasa Rae,

2. x "$50. Vcnkobarae,
 " -Age: 33 years,
 No.45; Est. Main.

Vi3'ayar:az3d Nagar,
Bangalore -- 560 096.
Prabhu,



petiiieiier and the learned State Public Presecixtor are heard an

riterits. Peruszed the impugited judgment and else the <:lep;<:e..ifrit3;iii*t_vei'

PWs,l ti} 3 examined fer the prosecution before the    ~

3. During the course of his argiiments,'le:it£ieid"§§eaie Pigblicii

Pmsecuter submitted that aggrieved by tiie 

order of acquittal, the State did us:  eppeai,   ifoundiii

that it did net deserve to be challenged' State. A i
51. The respondent Nos.  ii_e.iiarge--sheeted fer

the efienee under IPC en ttiie ground

tliat at abeiit ‘slim they eeiiiiiiitted trespass into the

site belengidg».._te the attempted te install 3:: Idol cf

gétnjaneygisivamy. V Ge._eeiefiil reading of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2

i’it isi Smt. Near Ian, Wilt) is the petitioner herein, has

_ V that on cine morning at abmit 6.00 am 0:’ 7.00

the iicciisgezl scams to her site and started cleaning, Whell she

iqizesiieiieti as to why he was cleaning, he tcild her that they propose

bttild there C3318 Anjaneyaswairiy Temple as there were Arali Tree

Neem Tree. She has further clepased that when she asked the

‘;—-_§””\-‘\.——‘

Station- PW3 Iayavanth Singh is the 1.0. His evidence does net

relate to the mzcurrence ofthe alleged incident.

5, On carefiil perusal of the: above evidence of

écould be seen that the learned Trial }udge”righti§}f K 2

same and recorded the finding that the 1.0 ”

the said charges ieveied against tl1eV3;c%;§:ii::¢d.

judgment and Grder ofacquit£i11.._does:iii1t $5.-§1EI iE’Qr interferefice in this
revisian petitian. Hence this revisioriié :di<:mis€_e1i'_as being deveid
ofmerits. é

Sd/-'
Iudge

%%%%%