sw-ou.nvr'1w°-ui'ar1 .....~m Wm. W mmnmm mam (mum ow KARNMAKA H561-E mum' cw mmamrm Ham couwfifi IN THE HIGH coum" OF KARNA:TfA;(A A T 1 CIRCUIT 8ENCH._:'A'fj é;rLQAIésA * 3 7 DATED THIS THE 23??_L>A%v%r§F ocToa%Eak%20os k L % .
VS/oKal.1appa ”
Age v
Agrictiltiz p
– .. R/0 I¥I3,z1(ii1<;':za"Vil1age
H*um11abad._ Tami:
V i.B:dar_Dism¢’£.”‘
Q :A:ji1,?i
S:’5:–Ka!1é}pPa
Age 2_9 years
Qctr” :” Agxiculture
” Rio Handikera Village
Humnabad Taluk
V Bidar Diatxict.
aEFAt?i2Ekk%A:%%%
THE HON’BLE MRJ4.)$TI’¢EV”‘MO§é.A#§l.j’VSH.ANTANAGOUDAR
gggmmaa, asmsse/goo5
, Appeilants
(By Sri Avinash A Uplcmkar, Adv.,)
_.,_ ._ ..-..,..n .._.v…u W m.m.mNM:Ae\A mun cuuxr cw WMAIAM was cougar as KARNATAKA Hum mum
And:
The State of Karnataka
By Humnabad Police
Bidar
Rep by S.P.P.,
High Court Building .V ‘ ‘~ . «.
Bangalorcrl. ” sV»”;’.iV§espo11:1en£_
{By smx. Anuradha [}csa1,’VuLii.ti_'(i1. $.19.’
This V-A_1jpc’a1A 1s’1flcd”-under Section 374 of
Cr.P.C. against thtig judg:21ex;t”zIat§:d 539-7-2005 passed by the
19.0., I+”§_’C3-i_§;’ in , s.c;N¢;’4’/ 2000 convicting the
appeIIz3iits_=4aéc'{}’:;ed”-_Vjfor. _ t3r1é”v.: offences punishable under
Sect:io11,323 326 of”IPC ¢.tc.,
._ coming on for hearing this day,
the dé1i:V'{¢3I’8d’th,__6 fsllowing :
‘”JvDGKsNr
appeal is filed by the convicted accused
judgment ans order (}fCOI}ViCtiO1’1 passed on
2005, by the learned District 8; Sessions
‘ ” }:J11 (,;ig€, Guibarga, in Sessions Case No.4,!20{}0. Accused
txfic-id Ibr the offences punishable under Sections
326, 504 and 30’? I”/W. Section 34 of IPC.
\’»//A)
2: nnwrlt » wnvlurn-Irnnl uwrwa\I:’ur’|Ir”l\I\l”\ % lI\.7li ‘9bu\IEJi\I: ‘MI!’ RIQKEVHHHWH !’1I\3’f1
-4-
seeing the assault, the daughter of the —-~
PW»-2 Vidyavathj came there to V’ fine
instigation of accused NQ’;1″; “s.c(_:L1Aseg:1′ ‘ (épiicflszlii
No.2) assaulted on the of
talwar. Consequently,’ itljiiiies.
According to .”t.’rg(_: sccused had
assaulted Pws. 1 and_ ::ss»s}ithsa:T%i:i.1s:::ion to commit their
murder; ‘ ” X *
3. In ordejfi’ tciv :)1’éi.fe ths fjfssecufion in all
examinsd 14 Witimfssss -.:fi1a%.fked 11 documents
and two materisd Lo’bjsc::su. ‘ ‘V
injured Witnesses. PWs.6, ‘7
eye to the incident; who have
.Vf11§%:3§£1″11Qstilé.~. 4, 5 and 12 are the mahazar
the spot panchansma and seizure
‘_ Exs.P–2 and P3 respectively. PW’~»8 is the
ifwho treated PWs.1 ans 2 and issued wound
sun-re
-5-
ceriziticate as per Ex.P–‘7. PW–1U is th¢v~.V.iif3;festigating
Ofiicer. PWs.i1, 13 and :4 am
who involved in the investigation. u ‘
4. The trial aI’tt§r.
Nos. 1 to 3 for the Sections
504 and 307* pr and convicted
accused Nos. 1 85 2 herein
lbf’ J<)ii_'<_§2r:;r:§iSV' fpiinishable under Sections
2: wwrvw\u I§£"IrM'%.l"'|¥iP'\E\J"$ l"'I!M'a'l&"I Kuhlfilfii KJI" §'%.H!§I'M-\:Al\H
324 and 326 r/wf11s¢¢t:ipth';,:y} them to
nridergo rigorou$ _ period of 6 movraths
for the offence gfinrggshgbié Eéection 324 1'/W.
Sectiovg_1_34 and rigorous imprisonment
for a and to pay fine of Rs.2,50o/-
e;;u:1;%tbr thekgtzzéfitféi."_1ga;1%:it§hab1e under Section 326 r/w.
Setffion detault clause. 'I'h& trial (301111
;airec:¢a that both the sentences to run
,.5;:gj+1iC2t1:1'<§nfly and the sentence already undergone by
…n.._..m …vu.u W ewmmnm mew mum" as KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 0; KARNATAKA ::§}Em W
H COURT
.5,
them shall be set off. The trial Court acqxfitfed accused
No.2 of the ofiences alleged against ii
5. The prosecufgioifi 1′. __
evidence of PWs.}. and’ 2 dfilpport are
injured eye it may be
mentioned _ A. A[}idionka.r, learned
counsel A V the appellants fairly
submits cannot escape the
punishabie for the “$25 of :90.
However, accord;%;1g__td has not proved
its case beyond réasdllablé i’espect of accused
No. 1 is.vconcer.r_1éd.dA.
Tlif’: by Smtfinuradha Desai,
le;1§;’t’1t’:d Add]; on behaif of the respondent
.1 dcpesed that §>W~–i2 — his daughter is
Z ” ‘ A7’…:;:1A:;’Li:{=iedf.t9″;3cCi1$ed Nd}. and there was a difi’erence of
vbéfieen the two aiter two years of the marriage.
55:?”-ix/f _,,J
-3-
In that context, a complaint has been
against all the three accused as all the. »
were harassing PW~2. In view}: of-.tl1fe saine;- ‘
continued between the ‘On ‘griape
incident, while ~1 2 shop of
Saclanand at No.2 (already
acquitted byfilie ” 1 and 12 in
filthy No.3 assaulted
PWs.1 suifered simple
injuries : ”Us1;1tlefed gievous injuries.
Accused No.1 ” igisfigated accused No.3 to
Vasgaulp _l”.l[s. After the incident, PW-1 has
legged” t31e._V4c9pu:1jjiaint as per §§3x.l’~I. In the cross-
iv”a..__V_exam’inét’iii0n’ ef’j_PW~l, nothing worth is elicited so as to
_discard his evidence. However, it is elicited in the cross-
that there is rivalry between the parties
V’ {hat three cases are foisted against the accused.
m\..rwuas\i wa muwwnvwtirwiuwt ansvuu uwuna mmwwmlmmn E1|\.’.’.!8’1 MQJUK! WV AHKNAIMKM WIUM CWUKE K}? K&KNA1AKA
.. ouwuru
.3-
7. The evidence of PW~–1 is fully “the
evidence of PW~–2, who has also dep0sed..e§1~
evidence of PW» 1. She has K
No.3 assaulted PW~1 as as,” her
at that point of time, No. accused
No.3 to assault onvliet. _ is deposed by PW-
2 that because oi’v’.t}1e j:ass,zg.ce,;1t’.«’b3f: No.3, she
sustained’ ‘of€ :.1_eft_…hggmd: “””‘Even in the Cross-
.. -mwouarwlxi g.-.3′ nnnn:-unsxn nsura uuuna we m~w’.NA§AE%.A HIGH CfiL}URT Q? KARNAYAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEGW COURT
examination, %_she.;*t-:iierate_s’Vf,fie ‘mirierayirts of the accused
Nos.1 and . —
8. Thus, if elearAiit'(§i1i the evidence of these two
tf1ét'” it was accused No.3 who
assiaauited’ = 2. Consequently, they have
% “~*g$1f}exeti..eee11;ai§§;’ As is clear from the complaint
” “.–1«E;;_._I:’~1,VLacc:jsed No.2 (who is acquitted by the trial
allegedly abused PWs.1 and 2. A bare
of the complaint Ex.P-1 discloses that the
%L””«.le1iegations made against accused Noel and 2 are
we run u—«. no mm mm
.9-
almost similar in nature. The trial
accused No.2, against whom similar ‘aiiegatidiis’
made as made against: aceirsved to
convict accused No.1. ».H_aviIig.. 131::
found in Ex.P–1, ceupieéV”e’e.\%?ith ti1e..eVei:;e1deeVVet” I-‘Ws. V1
and 2, the j1zd§11..;;’:;*1ts_ .\:ii’s.convVietien recorded
against accused No. 1V ._
9.5 The gieposed that PW~2 has
it? wwwa\I V_.,..,’ mmw..mm naufi euum W mmnmm men com’: 0? KARNATAXA men comm es mmnmm HEGH cause’
sustained as, she has
suffered fieeetufe’ whereas, PW-1 has
sustained ‘oneuxsimpleu The doctor has deposed
lacerated wounds 1 ).
if had used the chopper, which is a
the injured would have sustained
0%” ifijuries. As the injured has sustained
figzounds, learned eounsei for the appeflants is
‘. in making his submission that the assault
Imist have been made by a club. Added to it, the
1”
2%’
Xvi
LU!..¥KH $1)?’ Ki-\W.NIMfi¥%fl Ms-31.3%” klU££§{%’A’§Jh_:Kfl§(NME£kE§M mt.-;»w %o€»%.JéM¥ Mi?” B§.MKNfi\EflflM ruuw mwum U?” RHKNHKRNA HIUE1 uwuiw war Iu«wai\u=-Lemma rnwn MWUWI
…§(}..
doctor in his examin3.tion—in-chief, has stated. the
injuries must have been caused by
object.
10. In this context; sgji
counsel appearing for the
stick which is oooimission of
offence is 3. the context of
villagers.’ are used in day-
today._.li fe eherefone, it may not fall
wit}; oeedly Weapon. The same is
controVeftedVV”i:)}}’V Desai, learned A
§
2mm” 0%” mEemm.m<:.a. mom coumfiofi mmpgmm Maw'-3 kmumg W m…..W,,,,…mm_ H
-11..
considered opinion, that accused No.3 has committed
the oifcnce punishable under Section “As
aibrementioned, no case is made out
No.1 by the prosecution.
At this stage, ..
counsel for the ._ the wixocident has
occzurred about tho spur of the
moment. time, the accused
must their family members
fl4l(:I”].i(:I*lCY may be shown to
the of the same, the foilowing order
1′-1a<1e~V: ., V' "
judgxnent; and order of conviction
. ‘A’féVcorded against accused No.1 is set
aside. Accused No.1 is acquitted of all
the charges leveiled against him.
6)) The conviction recorded against accused
No.3 (i.e., appellant No.2 — Aljun 3/o
rxwunu E ‘&’I”w.rlI*mu1\’bb’4v2z
Mlwm MQJWKE WV ¥\f’§lV{lW.P”MiWhI\fi’\ H”HL3’f”é wwuwg wa mwwnmammnmnww a :
Kallappa herein) for the ofierzee
punishable under Section 326 of
set aside. However, he is
the offence punishable
324 and 325(¢1pc§ghqane¢s¢g¢uggc¢a”;
to undergo
one month 1″()_r°».:: the
etfences and figs ‘(ji’10V’,f;,)(}()/-,
in deiaifif;’:%.. ~-._of he is
sentenced to’ for a
of months» e
in f1i::e”‘ti1e entire’ amount of fire
namely Vidyavathi.
accordingky.
5′?
‘vz_,/»
mbmm $HANTA.HAGOUDAR)
JUDGE
Sd/~
V’ *bIc/bsn, IUDGE