I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA.LDRE
DATED THIS THE 3"?' DAY OF APRIL 2vQ.Q'S:'V':
PRESENT u_
THE HON'BLE MR.)USTICE-IK';SREAEf§.HAI{ BHA@vV~Pf)"
A N D % . . '
THE HON'BLE MR.J'uSj'T-ICE JAwIAD..PA_H'I**N J
-
CRL. APPEAI;%.A1u’;)fT}f:«.4g”‘A2Dtj_<3flS
BETWEEN:
CHAMAN SAB
S/0. AE’?DU’¥..–,S_TGHA1NI SAD – _
AGED4A’E3Ol:}T_”_–s42v
occ: HAMALI ‘V\/OR-KgIN’—-RIAIL»§/VAY GOODS
R/O. 7TH”‘C???L:QS5.,_”P..AGIC;.1.}DD3A
S~HIrvID.GA_ TAfLUK fi\..N’D DIST
. _ ‘ …APPELLANT
(By Sri S I<~vENI<_ATA-REDDT, ADV.)
AND
QF KAPQNATA KA
BY R_LJ–RA'L POLICE STATION
A V I " SHIIMOQ'-'LV].~
. * RESPONDENT
(By._S;-I S.Is_"PAvIN, ADDL. SPP)
_;;.,., '<:RL.APPEA-L IS FILED U/S.37-4(2) CR.P.C. BY THE
* AVD'./QCATE FOR THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
Ti:.._ "APPELLANT-ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/u/SS.302,
@498-A, 309 OF IPC AND SENTENCING HIM To UNDERGO
iii) The accused was examined by;-.__PW2~
Dr.Nagbhushana who had spoken
examined him on 6.45 pm. on th:锑d’at_e«..:o:f:.the_
incident. That shows the accuVse'”d.,w’a.As’~oresentui
at the place of occurre’rice.at A
iv) PW5-daughter of the»i.4acc;usedjwoiiiid
faiseiy impiicatedhimfher vers»i’orriVA .i:s_.inn§ocVen_t:”r.
version of the “i’n:c”i’dent wh_ic’h.”.=re’t;_uires due
credence. .
Therefore, he contendstthe ‘tAri”ai’V considered the
evidence in thelcorrecgt pe’rs«pect’iv’e-.aVn_dffound it indicts the
accused.
5. We1ha’ve..__hearduV’_A”i3..o_th {sides and remappraised the
evidence._o’n.record’;r~ _ ” ”
t 6. :I_t’is__not in «d.i.s.p«ute that the deceased was living with
-.acc.u’se;dvi.at-«the reievant time and Mines Banu and the
y’ou’iiiger’sei} were iiving with them. However, it is noticed
that 5?\/ifA1.O:Asiam claims to have gone to the piace of
“..j”V.oAcciu~trence around 5.30 pm. Though the accused was
treated in the hospital, it is brought on record that as it
1.’ fl}
E3
act of the accused. It is for this reason we are cornpeiied
to record that the benefit of doubt accrues to him.
12. For the reasons stated above, as theA4″:evidTen.’ce
PW5 is difficuit to accept in the ab..sen.ce oiffuu
we are constrained to acquit hirn} “i5″_hfe’fVapp.e’ai..’ther*efore;.
succeeds insofar as it relatesfto the”‘findVinc_,j..vQf~..;c’o«rwiction”»V
passed against the accusedp_.foif»v..th’e_,L’offence_AAuVnder 302,
I.P.C. and it is set aside’.:f~e . if
13. However; as find sufficient
evidence .._a;-gfierfffiirvfitnesses about the
harassment by the accused. The
learned ‘trial ‘h.a.’s’44Vrightiy convicted him under
Sect§i:ons~498–V}\”‘–and____t«tie conviction needs no interference.
» co nvfirrn the__ sa me.
V.W_i”th’fv.regard to the offence under Section 309,
“~».I.P.C.;..V__’the evidence of PW2–Dr.Nagbhushana would
V.””._c’o.nvi.’ncingiy estabiish that the accused was treated for
injuries sustained by him in attempt to hang hirnseif.
U
E4
Therefore, the said finding against the accused is
confirmed.
15. It is submitted that after his arrest,_.’the’
was in custody for a short time_and_is .’n.o’W”Lind’é*rgoVin’gV
sentence after conviction by the impukjnevd
obvious that he has aireaid3:(“”~..compieted_t’he’5._ten.Lire off’
imprisonment of sentence onVAt.he;sLe_ crotints’.
:16. In the resuit, we’pass”the.Vf.oiAi.’oi3\i_inVg-..oVrder:
The ai3.P.’-3:5?-.i_S aiilfofwedi confirming the
order of for the offence
passed in S.C.8S/O2
on thevfifiie’-of Court, Shimoga, we acquit
him_.of the V_:(V)ffet’iCeA”v.lir”1′.(:ler Section 302, I.P.C. The
Aacetjised».-C’h,3manA’S’a’bi s/0 Abdui Ghani Sab, has obviously
t’iie”t,enure of imprisonment imposed on the said
two Hence, he is directed to be set at iiberty
forthiwith, if not required in any other case.
,.
1:
Registry is directed to communicate the op_e__rative
portion of the order to the concerned jail autho–«r§’t§e’s._’ésr}d
trial court for compiiance of the order.
vv
vgh*
Hb