-1- IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 23TH 1:>AY OF MAY 2003 BEFORE H THE I~IQN'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASi%,.':§.I5-51' H BETWEEN: A.S.Subramanya Sctty _ 9/ o Late Annam Subbaxa3'a?Pt=1 '~ --. Res. At 1\Eo.433, 2"' Floor, 50 feet f~'2'<:.a_Ci*.._» BSKI Stage, Hanumanthapaga:r"" " ' " I3ANGALORE--50. 2 ~ " .PE'FI']'IONER (By Smt.Ka.lpana A AND: Z. Gopinatha'VRéddy " ' ¢_ " V S/0 .Reddy.__ Agedfabout yeam, .R",<at # 442 10th Cmss, Giri:i'agst::,a"fl_S'La'gcé BANGALGRE.' _ * 2. Kfishna :é'ea;:y%,V sgo Hafifima Raddy Agggd about 34 yew-5 V Ii.-'_l__é;t 'Nagalamadike Hobli ' Pavagad§*.fI'a1uk, Tumkur Dist. on V M._Tej'as;'* f o:'I§':'."V. Malia Raddy 'Major m'Aga,*' 12/ at at 574, 8th Main 3§*r.C1'QsS,-.Girinagaza 11 Stage Bangalgre. .. RESPONDENTS
_ ‘}j{B5r ‘sn{.s.K.venka:a Reddy 65
” _ ‘S;’i;.S…N.Sn’ram Recidy, Adva.)
This Criminal Revision Petition is flied under Section. 39’?
” i€.éLd with Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order of
. acquittal passed by the I ACMM., Bangalore passed in
C,C.No.3028/20(1)} dt.25.7.2()O6 and further be pleased to
remand the above cane ibr mtxiql anti -onabio bu Pmfifiunur tum
‘”imentiona11y insulted him in filthy ianauase.
.2-
prove flue guilty (pf the responéents beysnd all reasonable doubts
and render justice to petitioner.
This Revision Petifion comixig on for Final Hearing
this day,
the Court made the following: ”
S2_B..Q..E_B
This matter was listed on 27.5.2008.
was caiied thrice, none appeared. :’F}ie”Co}1;st Q13 j perz1:sa1.»ofethef’. AV
seconds, tmated the matter as
Tociay also, the matter was bxlt {bf
the pefitiezner.
2. This TVRevisi<;A:p'V:T' Mt'!-"13 judgment in
c.c.No.:3o2s/ 2:00 paateii the accused.
3. charge-sheeted the
accuse:;§i”fsf Sections 341, 323, 448
and 504;’ ‘reaii we.
sf 113%: ljiaoséeution is that. on 28.8.2001 at 10.30
” ” amused’ wifi;i a common intexition to commit offence
“gathered Millexmjum Group Cyber Cafe and fcreibiy
the said premises and demanded RS2 lakhs
being lease amount and assaulted the comp1ain.a11t’ with
A {f and also caused damages to the flower pets to the tune of
hRgs.’1’SO]– and wrongfufiy restrained the complainant and
-3-
5. in support of the prosecution ease, the prosecution
adduced the evidence of PWS-1 to 6 and also got marked E}xs.P}
and P2. The trial court on appreciation of the evidetiee found
that the evidence is insuficient to iamve the afiegetl and
acquitted the accused.
6. PW–1 is the complainant. :,ei*os”s,fe;ta1.*3.ix;at:io1§’, he
admits that, he had not n;eationed,.:about 1 yesttlt
alleged to have been caused ~aee1leed., alsiolhadmits tltat
there is common passage to there is a shop
and had kept the flower He also admits
that the the said comzaon
passage accused No.1 had also filed a
complaintv Considering the said
evideaee the evidence of PW–2, the trial
Judge foimgi ls contradiction between both the
evidence, as PWV–2___admits in her croeswexantixlation that, one
. wl3′.o__is the brother of accused No.1, was her tenant
that, another shop was adjoining to the
clitiic .Ra;vi11dra. She admits that, there is a passage to
h appéroaell both the shops. It has also come in the evidence that
l -‘icomplai11a11t and his son had assaulted the accused.
* »v.–‘f”fl;:e« accusedjiiwfiaf it
in the common passage and it hens else coitae 1t1ie;_.ev;;€ie;1ce
that, there is a common passa§e’;~ The iiot reflect
the allegation of insu1t.,. Wife oi” PW~–
‘2 has also admitted ‘i.’.ss:_,’* ‘flisfiute between the
comp1ai:{1a1:zt’s éfemfly complaints are also
filed. ‘I’het°-ea” parties, except self»
eerviilg ctieer material pmciuced by the
pmseet1fic:iA.AVVV’iii.’;;Viewiithere -iiaeing no clear evidence, the trial
court In my opinion, when there is
no gevidence ‘-tcg: the alleged ofience beyond reasoziabie
” no ciiiestion of convicting the accused. pexticmarly
vszheiti the proper evidence. I find no reasoa to
ii1terfe;1en.eev’v§7ith the gudgment of the trial court.
” * iii the result, the Revision Petition ‘fails and is dismissed.
a
Sd/’7′”
Judge