Gundu Rama Lohar vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 December, 2009

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH

AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 07"' DAY OF DECEMBER;'*2'0'<)9.'__fi  _

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. }UST!.CE 
AND % . . V A , . _ 
THE HON'BLE MR. }USTI(3PEP'R_A\/ I £\P/1PPA'IP.P:1}\:/VIZAPIPEH
CRL.APPl§:A'i~.    P P
BETWEEN:    i R   P

GUNDU RAMA L€)HAR_, _  . 
AT PRESENT  
AS C.T.P.NO.199..2S,.  R 1.  «-
C ENTR AL .F"A"I'L-,_ H.-1NDTALA--Q-'A,
BELGAUM;  » ..   
 APPELLANT.

(BY SR1. H.R}HC»DLI".. RIAE.)
AND P P
THE:'ST.A'TE:"'DF.VP:K.ARNATAKA.

  _  _   RESPONDENT.

(BY SHi-.’._A.R..1>f..A_T1::L’; ADDL. SPP.)

THIEERIMINAL APPEAL {S PREFERRED BY THE

‘””A;>PVEL..LANT¢ACCUSED THROUGH THE

; *_”S]UP.EjRINT.ENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON. HINDALAGA,

=Ij=_’HEL(;~.AuM, AGAINST THE }UDGM’EN’.I’ DT.26/Ii/2005

.’i~P.A’s”sED BY THE 13.0., FTCMII, & ADDL. S.J., BELGAUM,
_ RIN’4’S;~C’.RN0.256/2004.

%/

Ex)

THHSAPPEAL CONUNG ON RDRtuNAL HEAéhu}

THIS DAY, SR1. SREEDHAR RAO, 1., DELIVERED~V.T’H’EA’

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT*”»h;

The material facts of the’p..1_jcseAc’uVt’i’CnV
that one Smt.Kalavathi the the
accused and they were ago. The
accused along withthe house
to attend the ‘QV_’f’:””lv3hW,Lbfothgl–jn_
law of the ;»”:’i;§£*.;1e with the deceased
stayed f’0:*v:V”aAb’05727{oe:2004’atci1-00 p.HL the accused told the

dec2e.aée_dhth:§i=t_hthe-yi].~si10u!d get back to their home and

x”°a’;;ked her tV0’aVc~c0mpztny him. The deceased refused to

‘4’”‘é.cct5’1npVc21nyahd wanted to stay for more day.

J0/

2) The accused and the deceased were. sleeping in

a room. The other persons were sleeping in the h’i§:ii:lii-it}-1j.iiiv..
other rooms. It was around 01-30 am. in the”-«.rii;_;l2t..ii’thesfi
accused insisted the deceased that they iishould ~:get”bacl<'to

their home. The deceased refused and told tha.t.t.i:s'l"ie will

stay for one more day. wild,
throttled her neck by a the cries
the PW. 1–brother, PW.2v–A1v..ilW.3-your1gei'
sister, PW.6 and [4
came to the from the
clutches oli_th.e' and others assaulted
the accused

T_ihexPWi."l'.a_r1d others along with the accused

took'–wvjAicvt¢i'Ir1;"t.o"the hospital, on the way she succumbs.

pcstmorterh_to’i’epor’t discloses that the death is on

-of-ac_co,u11t o”f_ strangulation. The accused had sustained
T’–.i11–jiir”iews,_t:’i1 the person. it is obvious because of the

by PW.l and others for his ghastly act. The

%/

complaint is lodged before the police on the same day at

03-00 21,111. in the night. The accused is prosecu”tedfl’t7ti’i*..

committing offence U/S302 IPC.

4) The PW.1 to PW.4

prosecution case. They have g’Eye–.:_iz
that they heard cries offthe the
scene and found the deceased
and squeezing frame. They
rescued the of the accused
and took Ziief” t._he”iJvvt1y to hospital she
succumbedi-$9: PW.6 and PW.i4 the
indepeiidyfirltywi4’ti16:$tR~e.s” ha-ve”‘.inmt saipported the case of the
discloses that the death is

honiticid-aid; Tj’i’.i-211 Court on the basis of evidence of

to”-.PW§«1«.i:’coupled with PM. report convicted the

HN:’ae’cuised__fotthe offence U/8.302 IPC; The accused in

6

is to be sefi free forthwith if not required to be detained.-‘–i.._n

any other case.

The fee of Amicus Curiae is f’»iA3.ed ‘V

The State shalt pay the same.

Mrk/–