1:»: THE HIGH Comm' 9;: ;<ARNM'A1<A A'§f__B;A:I€£"¥g3:I;.(§R;'§ M'
DATES THIS TE-IE ama ;3g§g*j"c3:«"~M::::~:g' ,
THE HOWBLE MR. JUsT1é§j;a:A.si. P;&CI»::aAfi t§:§E
CRL. REVISIOI*:€a'~PETE'f§E{) :§§~1 088}-éoéé
BETWEEN:
Sri. Fa}/HZ, é
S/9. Moha:r;m:§d_SIai.:¢1, 32:3§éa,1fs,=."
Hamali, Danscmnam; &
G-hikmaga11_1rACi.ty{*<:;;, PETITIONER
A ~:3abu, (3. Adv.)
AND:
fifzze sate Fb;z%Tox;r;:kPo1ice
%V c:1u:;::uagai+z_:r"* Qity. . . RESPONDENT
4%%{By%i%sm B. Balamshna, HCGP.)
T§1iS* is, filed 11/ 8.89′? (31:98. praying ta sat,
‘asizifi the” arder of cmnviction dt.3 1.3.2686 passed by the
i:’ “–F’E’C-II, Chickrnagalur in Cr1.A. No.75,/2804 and order
‘ :;Iat§c:€{“43£9.8.2GO4 and Omar datcé 19.8.2004 passsd by flhtfi
A::”2d7i.–. ..CJ (JR. DN.) fis JMFC, Chiignagalur 2: cc
“No.i3’? 11$/£2001 and the pctitionsr be acqzlittcd of the
‘ Gffeiice for which he stands convicted.
This Cri. RP czctxzrzing on for hearing this day, the court
znacie the follcxwmgz
The petiticmner has chaI£¢r1g:§dn f; §:é3I§x2’i{f:!”_3’__o;a*; _ an€i=_ I
sentence for the Offfiflcfi undgr Séctién 32’€>”V’V’Qf.’§;ij:;e clfia
Trial held by the JMFC, cm¢k:§aga1uf’§en@:3:med in the
appeal by Fast ‘I’rack
‘£’1’1c:.Vi’a§:i:-:3 f€)_IA’ fl :f;£?:u of this revision
are as 1;flCié7ri”,\”._V »
.§fi”S’0f§T23IS}I2{){j’}.Jiihaig Haseena, the sissier of tha ?
accuséd’ is. the’«.f3ctii;éqfxs::ffi..~herei11 filed a compiajnt to thé
police: at éfbsut 5,;3dpm’; She is the resident of 4th cross in
Urciu Sahara} and she was residing
ané three children and on the date of the
ir.ici_fieI2t_;a.tVé.b:(;)ut 12.30 1100:}, she had come it) the house of
._t11e a<3i":1iS€d, 1:0 takfi bask the galden ornaments and mizsney
she had kept whfle she was with $115': accused, a
. K méanth eariier and when she: requested '£0 retum the
ornamants and 1110116}? to the accused, ska came ta know
{hat the accused had pledged them and when she further
254
asked far the armaments, the accusad at T’
chopper and siaxied assaultingfiii’ «heir
ether parts of the bedy 1 ~i*:g°s ‘V;:gjiidV’V$he
sustained injuries on the; ézgfs, left wés
zaxnpmzation ofthe mazefinggr¢f%ghg r:g1a:15535;’ At the time
of the assault, PW2 presem. She
fell ur1co13scig3u:;::.£V;€1f£*1d Vtaken to her house
at about E4 mother–;in«Iaw tack
PW1 ‘for the }31iI’P0Se Gf
~ under treatment, the poiice
appf§7&.Chefi””‘h§r’~aI1ci°-réiiordsd her complaint. On these
fact?’ ‘iiiifi CQ:nig}aifif”}i2x.P1 came 1:0 be regstered and the
§’E£§f_’.£vé.%.:’§fé¢I§Vtjn§_}the Magstrate. The ixzvastigaiing Officer,
went__Vt0 and in the prasenos of PW5 ané another
‘he}d at: E§x.P5 and ssized MOI Chopper. He
i*éca¥7r:’1u;i3d CUE’: statement of other Witnesses includmg PW2
PW3 and {2OH€C’¥:€€i injury certificate EXP4 fnom PW4.
” ~’ After completien :11′ the investigation he fiieé charge sheet
against the accused. Duriflg the trial, the prosecruiion
by the Trial Cceurt and confirmag 13;. as
illegal? –
(2) What Order?
4. It is the c0r1ter1ti01ui°<3;fV"'t.1_;§i: cavimsel for the
petitioner that excepi{__.1?1H If; tIi;:% 'i11I;ei'é':3t§:d WitI1f3S$, 110 other
wi1::1eSses have' suppQ.r£é_<i–..{ii§ irgaéél §;§1\\t1/jié prosecution and
therefore, he." 'h€:: ¢xrid'é1iCé: has to be discarded
50 .9130 if is the prosecuticsrz has not
examiijédv CW2, _§<fa£1di§:bo are the eye-witnesses and that
there am '–rIi£;.tt:£*i.fiv;j£v.[:Cc';fit:*.:idictioI1 and omissions in the
evid';'='"1Ce of 'further states that she dié 118?: see
€;')v3:'*é::01'";e…_svi10V%é;ssaL2}teé her as she later became
__u;t;c:i:*:s,f§::i;§u:§ _:§;mi it is aiso his contentien that the
p:"{;$4§§c1ztiz§1:rii'..~ fias mat ésxamined the Inv€:st3lgati31g Qffiaer
– ‘-which ‘iS_.I;i fatal {:0 the case of the proseautien. So aiso, it is
“‘}V9;i>;;.,;:j§i§nteI1tioI1 that thcrugh the injured has $tai:t:<:I that her
cfilpétiies were biood stained, the same have not been seized
'4 by the investigating agency, 0:1 ail these grounds, he has
sought for setting aside the j1.idg}a1e:z;V1'1':""'-.{§;t1(if_.'~. K
conviction.
5. Per contra, the 1cé.§;1n§§d
Pleader submits that ganeraliy
an irzjured does notv and does not
leave the persQ;:~x§?h0 and that her
cvidance fi§}fia;tefia1 particulars by
the evi§15:I1{:§”‘ iého has issued the injulry
Cerfifié.3te–_ “PVV1 has sustained incised
WOilI}{iS, A ” éhe iittle finger and as the
ampfitfitien of “}if11p f:nger is 8. gievous injury and the
weapo13._us$£iVA’ifi_ Causing the injury i3 a dangerous weapon,
the offence under Secticn 326 IPC is
V . j:_1stii7ieci;~.’:A I»1éVsufimits that the petitioner has not made gut
V’ ” g1″0i_inc:i to Waxtrant iI’i1Z6I’f€I’f3I1{Z€ £11 £116: cenczurrerat
of the courts bslow.
6. E have scru£:ir1i3€d the evidence led by the
presecution and also the documents grodnced in 316 case.
54..
corroborate her version about the assault “L-‘beet;
caused by a sharp edged weapon.
7. it is true that PW2 :=e*i_1_e a
accused has turned hostile PW3
independent wimeeses ihe firesecutien
but the mere fiaet fgiiat support the
version itself evidence of an
injured wimes;~;.__ ef evicience which has
:0 be 1oo;£ <e§i 'em: quaI1t.it:y. Theugh the
preseeutio1i";i_i{i 4 and 5 and when it
fef ot1iei:eha1*ge sheeteci witnesses is not a
evidence of the injuxeci. :1; is Wei}
ieetabfieh-ed of Law, that an injureé generally does
. an irmoeent and does not ieave the person
caused the harm. The evidence of PW»-1 reveals
relationehip between PW}. and the accused was
i""«.etif'd1ai, and as far as the incident is Ceneemed, the
54
10
relaticmship were stra1’11ed at the time of efxly
,Wh€I1 she demand for the cf1’1i’am.€;”13; AV
refused to return and it is in A
of assauit has taken place.-..ii1_1;1″1eA.eiret1mVStefieeé; £116 Ifierre
fact that the reiationehip 3 A’ “accused were
cerdia} before the e.:. CiJ_’Cuu1stance which
eeuid support ac§:iieed:;
8. of the spot manager
sickle has been seized. PW5 has
s1:ppor1fed:_ I:l*}e’ ‘ eke prosecution and seizuze of
PW5; ii; who treated PW»-71 in the hospital
ieeeed the iIlj¥_1I’}? certificate Ex.P4 and it reveals
A 2 85 4 are incised Wotmds suffered by PW–
V VV .V E No.3 is 21 contusion over the head measuring
“;:;e_.g,VVie};1ereas injury No.4 is amputation over the right
‘finger. The Beater is of the epinion that ixzjmy No.1
T i::: 4 are simple in nature and injmrjy No.5 is gieveus in
Imture. She was admitted in the hespital 01:: 23.5.20!) 1 and
5/\
I3
10. It is nessssary that when once a f.’ii’1:»i2_7<fi:<.i',"
there must be reasonable $<:n"i;<:noe.7_4 iixto 7. V
consideration these Circtlmstanceégl of tixe opiniofi ~~tf1':.«2t
the petitioner has not made g::.:'('}:_.2,:T'1_"<i1s*;&V"f§'
interferance. Hance, I ;;§nsw.e1*" i'I*1"t1ié Negative
and proceed to pass the'4fél1G'as%i-nig
The Revia§ior§iP€:1i:i0n1 is d:smiss¢é;%%% The Trial Court is
directed to' –.se{r2jg:§¢ Elia: of the accused to
commmfiicatré V ., __ — '
Iudgé