INTWHEHKHTCOURT(M:KARNATAKA(HRCUTTBENCHI
ATDHARWAD ;wI.
DATED THIS THE 07"' DAY OE DECEMEE'R-.I.2oEj9 T'
PRESENT A %f_
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE. K. V'
AND-MC, V '" 'VM
THE HON'BLE MR. I\fiMAL1I"\}I'ATH
C R L ,A PPEAAI4:
BETWEEN:
HANAMANT
AGE: 28 YEARS;'O'CC:7AG--R'I'CvULTURE,
R/0.HIREPADAsAI;Aj'c3'I', _
TQ: IAMAKHANDI,' IJIET-: _B'~A"G/KLKOT,
NOW AT CENTRAL, PR'Is<_)N,LL.»'C'
BIJAPUR,PvR_ISONER'NO.3074.
(*:é_Y"'sRVI".'*"I5.E'.jI<.AAR.IGARLWMANJULA N. TEIASWI,
W7..TIIEV_sTATE C-«LP VKARNATAKA.
{_"(B;_Y~?S}§l;. 'A.R.PATlL, ADDL.SPP.)
RESPONDENT.
…TiI1s CRIMINAL APPEAL Is PREFERRED BY THE
,3APPELLANT/ACCUSED THROUGH THE
“~,S”UPERIN”FENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, BIJAPUR,
V
APPELLANT.
2
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
12/9/2005 PASSED BY THE DIST. & S..I., sr.
JAMAKHANDI, IN S.C.l\lO.7()/2004.
rms APPEAL COMING ON
THIS DAY, SR1. SREEDHAR RAO, :Ij)i3LlV’.ERE’D&'”57’ti.E”Vf
FOLLOWING:
,1UD.GMEN.T:A”‘v«.
The material facts ofH_thi’e.__prosec{1’t.iio’ri_’;Vc:–;1se disclose
that one Pa1’ashuraf;’iirili§deee:i:seir;l)” i_sraA.’i(i’ei:il’er” in food–grains
and his shop is is.iV.ttrat;;eVd heariH’ire¥Paei§z1salagi bus–stand in
the shopping __c0i1i1i3’lVev2§’i’vrbe«l.o’ngin5: to the Temple. The
accused is the driveri’ofii’;lréeoi/’t-i’t111sport vehicle. There was
21 genei’al.«.é;alli’~giVeh “E3..y__the. lorry owners association to all
theilorry-»ow..he’rs’..tovg0 on strike and not to ply the lorries
A 2i7§o3l.2’oo4
(..)’n—l:i26–O8~2004 at ll-O0 p.m. at lorry was
PW.l3–drivcr of a lorry, in front of the shop
and PW.3 is the hirer of the lorry who
ilrisicl brought the lorry from Jamakhzmdi to Padasalagi for
%/G
loading jaggery. The accused objected PW.i3 for gevtting
the lorry despite the contemplated strike on the
There was a quarrel between the accused 5.
The deceased objected the accused_ forApquafiellli-nlg”l:a_nd;vaAl
committing nuisance in front ofllhis shop. and a*lV:slojsv1.app3ed
him. One Sangappa-PW.l__,
and pacified the quarrel. ‘Th’e-.a’c_Ciasived”*wellt»away telling
that he would avenge’.v__
3) The of his shop on that
night. It the night, one Kallappa–
PW.4, Mallappa”==.PVW,l5V’v._an~d: s:tit~ts1mi:-Pw.7 all of the three
\7iet’e_Ag<3..lull'g lA_l”t\.ie:1_t “ne’arA”the scene, the accused fled away.
about the motive is credible. There is no adverse rnvaterical
to reject their testimony.
8) The contention that theijeiuiis”ino.i’di;n2:it’e.delay
in lodging FIR is untenable. The the i’i11.ifor:nat’i–.ci’nT V
about 04-30 a.m. The PW}
Thereafter they go to the from
the scene. The delay ofA_t_hvi*ee noticed
would have been visiting the
scene and jioagyl-‘?g,ii.ri:’\l;\,A/::v_ the circumstances,
we do notii’v..’fe’e’l delay, which
creates false implication of the
a_c’c’u.s’e d .
ii’9)”‘i”.__V«Tl’ie”_~vt.c’_o’n’t’eintion that the deceased had enmity
twith others andhe had political rivalry with the accused
.1-i.si’;1.iot. é1’gi_i«ouiid to reject the testimony of PW4, PW5 and
whose evidence is credible. and clinchingly
iIf’ve$ta’blishes the guilt. The P.l\/I. report also corroborates
CF
that the death is i1()lTli.Ciddi. The time of death state<'lhi;1
if.
postmortem report also correspond with tile-::H.Eiii&I}i’;;.§:”._b1..,_ .
incident stated by the prosecution.
10) On overall consideration e.fi’t–he ev»i.Lie’i1’ce, i
find that the prosecution has guilt
of the accused beyond The”oiirde1′ of
conviction is sound andlpioper,’Fhe._apipeé1iV–iI,is°dismissed.
Mrk./.i_f T. 1 ii