SriVL'Hafa§a}i€'£»§a}1ika:junap§a
R;-i9,%.H'ga':ada.:;::' Hadagali Tamk
(By s;~§ sKs.su1;za1, Advecatxt)
" ».pm;;;s;ug to set aside the judgment éatefi 1£§,{)4.2()G3, pa-1$se<i
M ....iLT:,C.No.75/ 2003., acquitting the I'€S§}0I1£if':i1if€iCC"£1S6é for
IN THE man <:0:;m' 0:? KARNATAKA S
CIRCUYF BENCH A'? DHArawAD--_f:* : K V
DATED was THE 13% DAY 0;? 2:3Ec£é§2$;:§§ E;::é1,~:§:'a"e$§1V',
BEFORE; ": yx 'u
"mg HON'BLE 2»./1:=«:;,_;'z;:,;sx'r1c ;r:;
CREMQJA; APPEgL"j;s§. 1;Q382i)<J3::'§A
BETWEEN: V é
Sri A.Basava1'aj8:. V
Sfo. Sidda;3pa,-- '
Ageti 32 yeanég, i.'j{.%1:-;i':'_Vr'i.g:i'i(31€;.i}f£.i:€'i: '
Rfo. Ryarada 'iv¥v&c;§agaj;.fFa.i.ui<_
Beflary Distgicii, " ..¢A.p;3»e11ani
(By SI-gvgmégi-3 'sh;s:3§s.¢.ag'T_p%;§gé::;:ahe: ('Sn Jagadish Goud Patfl,
Aévocai:ej' " _ V' I " .
521%' H "
ft§[OV.'§{tai;¥fi1.3e3'5§z1;[);:;i§3., aged 4?' years
Diéhfici. ...Responde:1't
,, This 3?I)€al is flied under Seefien 378(4) {3r.P.{3.,
By the {ilivil Jucige (Jr.Dn.) &, Jmm at Hadagali, in
afihztlces punishable under motions. 44'? 6:. 3?'? £PC-- 6:, etc.
This appeal seaming 021 for 5313} haaring this flay, the
(301311: deiivereé the foilc-Wing:
£;._,:é:ic:*:7iAsVAA.i1 §;1:11tas for censidrszration of Rs.8(},{)€}0/-. The
has disbelieved the evidzmce of
Eng) afofesaid lands ans}. theft of stanézlzrxg maize cropg in
" lands by the accused.
:2:
JUDGMENT
T126 Iespcxndent fharezinafier referred
was tried and acquittesi of 0fi’;¢1;¢es }Z¥’!iifiSii«’_:’JCJ’}V.C~: v’13Vnd.{ér’
sections 447 55 3:79 {PC in c.c.§<é.g;»e?{:";¢:2?:)0":,_.' 05- :h;e<jj'-%f;;e::,._g§
Civii Judge (Jr. D121.) 55 JMFC.faf:- ..§{adéga§: V
2. The abeve caszgzfi u1fl31o’1;*~ L1″ gamplamt
flied by appellant ‘<:omp3:aJ.nant'}.
The learned 'V 0f era} 311$
documentgxxfi' 'gyvpartiesg has heid
liad executed an agreement of
38:13 d21t;«=:€iL?'}" " of accused, agreeixlg to sci}
Nf}s.269 (3/2 and 2699 ifi an extent of
c:ai:i:.p1aijn.a11"f and his '£'£7iTiII<3SS%3S in pmcaf of akleged. tmspas3
3, This is an aygeal against gudgmeni of acqtliital, This
C0111': deiaiing with 33 apfyaai againgt judgment of acquifiai
.A laéids to the accused for {eta} 3316 consideratiolfz of
'- received baiance sale cmzsideratima of
agmefizafit of sale. PW? has admittgcl in the agmemant of
" _Séa.§:3..:"(iated 27.98. 1997, it is recited p0S–'2§€SSi(}I1 of aforesaid
VA u .._.}2§a.n&s was delivered to accused. The accuscé has prevducsd
: 5 :
8, ?W3~NagaWa has admitted that herself and lgfzr son
(PW1) had; axecutczd agreement of saie dated air:
favour of accused in respect of afomsaid
consideration of Rs.80,(}0(}/- b’ mcgivedé- ::V¢fit§;*¢’–AV”
censiéienation, However, PW3
aforesaid lands was deli1,*é:1*»:;3i ‘«c{§A.v_”éic<§1:s-3%" w
agreement of 531:: datcé
9. PW2~Basava1v3§aVp;)a’isV to the agreement
of sale dated 2:’?’.I__38. i}u§i13:g-.VcIf)s3;;%§’e:;-,I en 27,98,199? and PWZ has attesttxi the
certified copy of agmcmcnt 0f 333: dated. ‘2?’.O8′ 1997. As per
mrcitals of agresmcnt of sale, PWs.1 5:. 3 has! agrceé tic 3611
W ..’,\/,L £;3″‘*~«’\../”fig-§x__,.,,,”
:§:
aferesaid lands for comaifieration of Rs.8G,OQ{}/ –
entire sale cfnzlsideration of Rs.8G,0O{)/–. It f;’t1::=._« V’
agreement that yrior to 27.08. 199?? 3′
Rs.6{),O{){}/- from accused and GI1A:’¥’}.1A(%!’£?_1za’5L€t
S313, remaining salt: considerétgin of ;3aid
by accused to i°Ws.1 ” 3, “.{§1:gI’€%’:’dvVf£}”VvV(:€X€Ct1tf: a
regisiemd sale deed gof on C)!’ before
30.04.1998. };.=<:)Sscss:i0:1 of
afoz'e $ai.d 5;. E 6:. 3 to accused under
agificfilent
10.:””£.’_1§us, avidence of PWs.1 to 3, PWS. 1
«Sr, exec;11″”i::%<::ivV_a3:, agreemeat of Sale dated 27,{)8.1997,
» aforesaid 1311613 in favour ('sf accused fer
'<';§f Rs.80,000/~ and had received rintixr: 3316
c:{13fi3fic'§ra*£':i<5n fivom accused.
11. PWS. 1 35 3 have {ienied laossessien of afsmsaié
Ends was deiivered under agmemeni of sala dated
2108,1997. The ftVi€i€l}CC af PWs.1 35 3 is contrary to the
CQ1:1t€i1tS of agreement af salt: dated 2’E”.O8.199?, Wifilerein it is
fif
K’
..L&__ if ~.,v— ,
: 7 :
specifically stateé that possession of aforesaid 133:1′-igwas
cielivered te accused on 2108. 1997.
12. The learneé Counsel fer WV
submit agreement of sale dated 2?’ V b
stamped. Therefore, the learrneti
recorded a finding that p0e»seV:s:§iQn 5% wa$
delivered to aceusedv ,—11;1der&V.e’ti;Ve’:5agi’eemeIif’0:” dated
2′?.€}8.£99′?.
éiépizte, filed by the accused for
speeifiev ‘ agreement is pendi11g in
o.s,§o.a2j”19_9e,,,¢–n of Civil Jueige (Sr.D1;}..) at Hesyet.
efnmiglal :f)V1″<')"':;-s'e':"{':V131:i0n for offences pmfishabie under
379 IPC, it is suflicient for the accuses? £0
e}§j$';£f3}_:¥~ee cf btmafide civil dieyute between parties.
A 51"' eiiéeeted an agreeeeem ef sale dated 2'?.089199'?, agreeing to
Veeil aforesaid lands £0 accused fer eonsieieration of
R R3,8§,0QQ/– and received entire saie eensideration from
~~ ';§'11e aceusefi has estahlishefii that .?WS.} 55 3 had
accused. R) z::~……,~c¥ M,
2 9 :
that successfui party in the cast: wsulé be enti1;1e:;i’___t0 the
amount in deposit.
18. The learned trial Judge taking
joint memo filed by partzies has hc§d»Vt1;at au¢{éi:’sa:jon. éftiié matter, I fmd the leanmd
trial on cf evidenca has acquitttrd
the accused, Thar: substantial <31}: oompefling reasons
V. t(}_"i:;;1t::-;r;§i"c:r»;; xx7ifl§1"'th¢__j_n:1pugned judgment of acquittal
' :'t1"1:£'f5~'I'(2E~§1l1i, I pass thfl fo11wing:~»
ORDER
” Tfie appeal is dismissed. ,
Sd/an
Iudgé
SHE?