{N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25113 DAY 0? JUNE
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR.JUSF£CEt»AK,RAMAN'§Hfi§'_'v > "
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nae3$aj260$S,,% %% 5 « - 7
1' : V
2 cHmNA@ MUTFA BHOSALE
S/0 NANAPAl@RAMU@ V
GOPALAN BHOSLE,'AT*'~ Pm:'sE1_~rr"i2\; .te.'1*:...%
C.T.P.NO. 181?6, H1NnAiAeAicmérrRAL~.
PRISON,HINDALAGA, 9.0, 5 i
BELGAUM
(By say sn§'t.; Cé.'.MAHfi'£i$E§'JA Amcus CURIAE )
- V1 Sftfarsz 0i#"'KaR:§A':'AKA .. REsPoNDEm*(sa
.A'(s_y:sg§i,t§:;t_M%:$ 'A.;;.--;;}wuMAmHARaYAPPA. H.C.G.P. )
V ' " muau-Manna
mxs .,"<:aA;7;.A IS PREFERRED BY THE ABOVE
CGNVICP/APP9;L1.ANr/Accusnn THROUGH THE svmr.
mason, HINDALAGA, BELGAUM, AGAINST THE
gaazmmz-m m.19.a.o4 mssan BY THE S..J., a.a.cm.xc7r, m
sc..w.s4,*o2 convxcmm THE APPELLANT'/A(JCUSED
i*IQ.1;'--CONVIC'I" FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/$.39'! RIW SEC34 OF
. -we mm SENFENCING I-HM T0 UNDERGO R1. FOR A PERIOD OF
E§G'H'I' YEAS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/8.394 R/W SECJ34 OF IPC
' ._A1~:::> TO PAY mm or 23.2000/-- EACH 1.13., OF' PAYMENT OF FINE
To UNDERGO 3.1. FOR 2 MONTHS.
THIS APPEAL C-0M§NG ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
42:'
JUDGHEHT
This appeal is filed by the Accused No.1
the judmlent and order of conviction 4,
learned Sessions Judge, Bclymn; 'A 'V
whereby, the appcllmnt accused Nail' ._
offence punishable undm
sentenced to undergo I2-.I...V foxf..8' fine of
Rs.2,{){)0/~ in default of 3.1. for
2 month§;._ up with this appeal.
2. in brief is that 1>.w.3
staying in their farm house. On
15/ Vésivbout 8.30 pm. when I"-'.W.3 and hm' late
were '31 their hut the Accusw Nos. 1
% abscondm g Accused Nos.3 and 4 came with a
V. intcntian to commit robbery of gold orxwents
V Mangal Sutra etc., assaulted causing gievous in3':1nes'
u tohcr andto thes.5 to
' instance of accused No.1 from Sud' har, Goldsmith
Gudur village and also other golden ornaments under
panchanama Ex.P.22 and recorded the statement of said
£4
Goldsmith and furthar statement of the V'
completion of investigation, he
the accused for the offenccs_
394, 302 r/W Section 34 of a@i:$t"A€>c1£$¢' pay fine of Rs.2,000/-- in default to undergo
xf<)r 2vV"montt1s. Being ayevcd by the said order,
No.1 has come up before this Court praying to set
thconrlerpassed bythctdalcourt.
4. Since tlm appeal came to be filed by the accused
No.1, who is the appellant herein through the Jailor, this
/E% W,.,--«*'''"
...'y/I/" - u
Court appointed sr: Mahaclevaprasad as
appear on behalfofthe appellant.
5. During the course of
Curiae' for the appellant
rightly acquitted the _€e'r ear; Section
302 IPC but wrongly 394 r/w
Section 34 of conclusion that
the accused injnrim to 1"-*.w.3
and robbegi the ornaments found on the
person of It is further argued that
1=gw.3 Court um she identified the
% the light and in the second breath she
" tvvhez) light 'E1 her farm house at the me
of z ofieuce. It is further argued that the
e varies but the trial Court has not taken
ace' N uni: this fact into consideration' . Further it is
that there is no other independent witness who
had seen the ailmed incident of robbery. P.W.3 has not
deposed before the Court as to who had assaulted 'm
k
particular portion of the body and as to what
Further it is argued that 1.0. /P.W. 14 has not
any materials to identify the accused _
that the evidence of P.W.3 has
the trial Court without any 11:5
the rules of evidence. P.W.4 etlléee of
P.W.3 and he is not an 'jgyg ._a.lfid..acooIt!' to him
he had been to the he saw
his mother injuries at the hands of
the accused weapons. P.W.5 has not
ea skete_hl'orAV: a list of articles seimd at the
.appelhnt No. 1 and he has not furnished
of properties seized. The t:r|a' 1 Court
V considered this aapect and ought to have
« appellant even for the ofienoe under Section
34 of iPC. Hence, the appeal is liable to
by setting aside the order of conviction of
sentence passed by the trial Court
'51;
4 ' ,«'"/fwd
. \
-:10 :-
responsible for any injuries causetfxazzdé
not cammittcd any offence and I
made any voluntary statemei1t--v.,i5t:!'oI\3.ii1e. as
the identification is rightly
met the submissions by the
appellant K .. The
substantial the direct cvidmicc of
P.W.3 was an incident of robbery
which house of P.W.3 and
V comxzriitéd. vvbf with deadly wmpons.
Court is right in convicting the
the other accused.
is, };Iav:'ng man: the arguments of Sri
« learned Amicus Curiae appearizg for
and Sri H.Hanuma:ntharayappa,
. V '4 H.C.G.P. appearing for the respondent/State, the
point that arises for my consideration and decision is
whether the judment and order of conviction passed by
%1/
the ma!’ Court is perverse and without ‘ ii: ‘ .,
of the evidence placed on record?
9. It is an 1mdisputed:e’fa__pt
deceased Yamanappa are tfie at
Upanal village. The ;ew% §égee on base of
the compiaint Ex.,P.4 by.V.P..W. As soon
as the Oflicer, Ilka},
P.W.1O and saw the
injured w,e e::e:e in the hospital. mezerom,
he P.W.3 as per Ex.P.4. P.W.3
“_ has this Court orally that her statement
as pm’ Ex.I-‘.4 in the Govt. Hospital zmd
Veverltents of Ex.P.4. Of course, there is
eeme eat; in the evidence of :>.w.3 with regard to the
e es; tee time of the incident. The evidence of P.W.3
that they are residing in the farm house
they have installed a power set and electnca’ 1
connections were taken even to the farm house.
Considering the fact that P.W.3 is a rustic village women,
the incident is said to have taken place a
and her evidence Ins been “thef{‘,e*u;;z_’i:
during 2003 after a lapse ofeiwo
the minor discrepancies in .Asa¢em negngblc.
According to her Nos. 1 and 2
assaulted the dagger and
Mangalasuiifae forcibly thereby,
causing is also clear
that accused snatched her
* she sustained ‘mjuries.
in the Court as the persons
and her husband and who forcibly
and other gold ornaments.
V has not been shaken during the course
. ” but on loss of memory she couid not
_ answer, Whether there was sufficient light at
of incident or not Apart fimn that, she aise
identified her ornaments and as well as the material
objects seized in this case. P.W.3 has sustained injuries as
413:-
per &:.P.2 wound certificate issued by P.W. 1.
the fact that the noticed by P.W.2 bf”: .,
P.W.3 are simple in name am V
appellant] accused No.1 and that L.
hold ofher and her husband itséaa” ‘ to
base a. eonvictian. ” as Wei} as
the apex Court have held’ ” is the
best w1t11e’ ss.t(‘i.:,’s’:«:A;:1_j:§g3ort_’_ the manner in
which plane. In the instant
case, P.W.3Ais and the trial Court has
I7ight1y . her evidence to base a
% the 1.0. who has sectmzd the pmence
of Zlthmugh body warrant and they
at JMFC, Hubfi and after being
L A % before the JMFC, Hunmamd, they were taken to
V 30, non drawing of the sketch at the scene of
oficnxae is not a material defect in the investigation and it
wfllnotbeofmyefiectifthcsoerwofoficncehas not been
5,1.»
414:-
drawn by the 1.0. The 1.0. p.w.14 has _
the investimtion and rightly filed th§chat’gca * V.
the appellant and accused No.2.
an attestor to Ex.P.5, *
conducted at the place of and 4
and M.Os. 10 and 11 “t.1 t1dc,L* &c.P.5, the
aré jzfj Ih s to disbehcve’
the the oral and
doc11nae:n11’*AiI3?:_’_ 4, 5 and 14, coupled
F evidence namely FIR and
to show that the appellant as well as
tt;e– are responsible for causing injuries to
Pk.w.3’% ‘rhbbing of Manylasutra and otmr geld
‘ Of course, P.W.3 herself says that accused
the persons who asmultcd her husband and
h V his death. Therefore, the trial Court: has come to a
right eonclusian in convicting the appcliant and Accused
No.2 only for thc ofihnccs punishable under Section 394
€::,;fl,,,, .,
n.
415:»
r/w Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, viewed ‘
do not find any rmtsons to ” ”
by the ma’ 1 Court except to the a9;~dér_.’a§’
passed by the trial Court. A
10. As far as the
appellant and Accusedv M by P.W.3 who
is an injmed ” at the
hands of and P.W.14 who
has am 2 on 16/1/2002 before
the and same’ I then they are in
_.. to the prosecution prior to
from judicial custody of the JMFC
the nature of the hljlmes
‘fqvulxdau pason of P.W.3 and the gold ornaments
‘ seized at the instance of Accused No.1, the
passed by the trial Court appears to he
Lexbessivc. Themfom, the sentence awarded by the trial
Courtistohe 1’;1od3’fiedandreducedfi’om8yearsR.I.te6
§_.//
-:16 :-
ymrs RI. However, the order of fine imposed by the trial
Court is to be Confirmed.
1 1. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed
judgmant and order of conviction –«
appellant] Accused No.1 for an
Section 394 r/w Secflon 34 the
order of sentence imposed hereby
modified and reduced rm. 3 in 6 years 12.1. and
to pay to pay fine, he shafl
undergo -The appellant is entitled to
set aff}f::f the ahieady undergone undczr
1/ ‘5f€»*r-P-0-
r V’ Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.3,000/m.
S&/-3
§12.ég’e
” ‘ Shiva