Jabi @ Jabiulla S/O Sardar Sab vs State By Hosadurga Police on 19 March, 2009

{egg gr; 1:’;§’;’»iEERA3remRA:AH, Aw. FOR SRI. 3

L PRAMOD; mv. ma APPELLANT )

THE STATE :3? §<ARm.T,a.m

BY TRE STATE PUELIC PRO§ECUTOR
MESH CQURT C3? §<iAP;?'éaé?§.§¢"¢E.

SANGALCRE 563 G921
FLESPONDENT

{B33 Sré : B.?;.é.3.$. SUBRAMANYQ BHAEHCGP )

«-..(‘\r\.._.,..\_

prezriuceci by the prosecution and aisc,,. =a§?’zgr

considering Ex.D1,a portion in the stateme.r{E{3fwV’.’:?**J&?Z§é,_._”‘ .

passed the impugned Judgr_n.e.n_: and'”- f¢vrtiésf’_’. c:f’:

ccnvictian, convécting the acc:isec3_’_’f:ir §f:<:.*t'£'%.:"t:';5'e: "_3a."%*t;':.j

affances but reieasigag 'pL;fa§ia'ti:::–z 3 gem'
behaviaur by invskiné' Sectéon 4 of
P.C).Act. T!f§er ef;2_re,;T£V?§e:::a{_iC{f:;'s§€§ weii as the
cempiairza agpeais.

the appaiiant –

accuse§–.§é%c%:g§§{V:é§:=.ré’t§é_§f§§§ §:.hat zziaspéte the eviéenca

sf W252, t4?*:’:’«.i>A3.?;v.-cV:’e’:3’r:’2;.’:ia%r’:t was written by the

“§=e£’§te ,*.”§::u%:.._%ts éé’:”é”:ent ware nat read aver am

Ae§<p§a§':'své{§.._t:::.~f'j:*aVer, the triai tau:-t cemmittad er:-er in

recéraigg éfifénding that EXP: ezampéaint came to be

. }:*e.22c'.:,:c:ef<:%* ts writéng by P2839 the Peaca Ir'aspec%:a:* as

'~__':'*;v.Vg:'r*':*aA"ce{:* by Pifaii. He furtfzar gubmitteé that theugh

"'P§&i? Pansh to Exfia $é%z:.:re mahazar in respect 5:'

seizure sf $405.2 tn 4 resgectéveétg, a pair 3?" gain? ear

'»___f'"\.—..___,.».

under Ex.F’6 Penchanama aise has

unchaiienged and therefore the 7trta£..tcotg’%t”_}geee4_tjutte

gustifiee in ignoring the see eisckipieétcytwh’i¢:ati::ie ‘¥;2:€3t:’V”:.

ge te the rent of the preseetftien tzveaee’ eeti
impugned Judgment and..V_fier<j.e'k"et'jet$twAictieh"'d:3es not
can fer any i-nterferemte tthei by the
accused. He the triai
caurt was tgetiefit of provisions
of Secticfe ;te_'VVthe'._11eteused, in View of the

fact that i;e,_estabv!.§ei?éecj:_"tt['t'he accused by pmciucing

marksyard ttiat, wes waged beiaw 19 years as an

ttievoffence, the triai ccuri: aught to have

difecteex 'AV~t§§e:2:used ta pay some amount at

V r;empe'n$&tio'r*:"'V' tea the cempiainant by invoking the

jf ;;;§otaes§¢nsas Sectien 5 cf 9.0. Act.

10. As te the naming into existence ef Ex.P1-

tompiaint, PW:-compiainant has categoricaiiy stated

in her evidence that after the incident she was taken

to Hosacéurga Hespitai by PWZ Siddappa and ewe PSI.–..__

I of Hesadurga P13. came to the said hospital_.Ae_eé”-.:”ef”~:.”vV

recorded her cempiaint as narrated by her.

nectar who admitted the injured inceeaciieésae:e.;–es%pe:ta%:exi

has aiso stated in his evieence that at 4e£:_’iiut ‘

an that date of incident, was
brought to the P7 Memo
to the fioiice ef5’Eeepense be it the
PSI of the and recercied
the statemeet ef as per Exfii in his
presence.’ ; *Ha he’e ?¥1Atfti’*§”erA.§:¥eeieseci in ciear terms that,

ai’._tfie Eff j:”fe<_:_erdér§éH of the saée etatement, the

m3'ure"'ci_'CQefipié«;.gjafigV–"wes in a peeétéen te speak ant?

'.:«J;1?'§e(E-=**e..*1 1'}"-have frede eneee-semen: an Ex.P1 cempiaént

effect'; we the P.S.}'.. has assa aepesed that

""'-";fte:~%– £4eeei§ring the Meme frem the Hospitai as its the

"e.eLee.gaer:éV;és%:on of the injured compiainarxt in me Hospitai,

fie rushed to it and recorded the statement ef the

campiainant as per Ex.P1.

,…..(*’\…..-\__,..

31

11. Since the above evidence at’ Pws.1, 9 arfiie

11, respectively the complainant, PSI and the

officer as tn the recording of the steteme:3§”~..ef % T’ 1

cempiainant as per Ex.P1 being’-ii: qeiiéte.

cogent: and trust werthyfithe to
the coming inte existene/\f\t{)fj”E:;€:;i?1;::Vee’ei’pi’eint came
not be discarded.vetj:iy_on:;’_trie given by
Pwl in her contents of the
said and explained to
her afierivit Jeame by the said Poiice.

Besidesihis, t4fi’eV_:PSI..’wi§’efecardee the said statement

elea{fi§r”3tated iriwfiiiev evidence that after he wrote

the-ever and expiainee its cements ts

iAiii?sm and theiihé. obtained her signature an it.

it 12. ‘i”‘h”e remres eisciese that immeeiateiy after

»:1j_ci;;V:fV:4″en7ce of the incident, the injured was taken ‘its

“ei’ieV’i*iespitz~z§, 3331 came te the hespitei within 2 heurs

ef the incident and recerded her cempieint statement

T£

the panchas, namaiy, PW? Shévakumar ans:

Knife which was used by the accused in cem:’zé__§tté:fag”‘

the offence was: seizes’ pursuant ‘t§ hé’s.

statamené: unease” Panch mama E2-<_. P4":-.r;"é.:he ?%9f?.5¥$¥¥€&

cf the Panchas, nameéy, Pxfiié S§§'i'~$:a?:?1;;rt?$gr._a:_'ni§-I Pfifé;

Sadashiva. ?'haugi'°: is the
presecuticn, PW§4.:h.as $Q;;;;:;..,#;~.§V'}ic'ir:g the
pmsecutien §:%€.:»A§i:*s€Vw2th that nf
PW". '''' H .. .. . ._ ..

14. .A.§’§VV”*.:§2v”e41.a1b:;:::§;V«v(é» find circumstances cf
the casga ;igar§’§,?4″es§ab§is?§ ‘£1-ifazé it was this accuses; v.rE’:a
r-§V§:V:’§a3’53;V i–.e:.”%3r%*:;,’; ia%:;§Va§Vr%’i”‘Em the saéci data, tima and

péaée ameagaa %f;€’:,§5s.~er cempéamt Ex. 9:. Tharefcre, 3

‘= “‘a i:’r2; 9? the csbazsféiéfiéreé View that the Triai Cam: wag

}:.;Tsf:§§ie:3″‘§:’: recesfiéng its firéfiirzg in the impugned

V”=,_”.§L:.§§!*r3=é£ei'”and arfiar aw’ canvictien tfzat the prasecutian

¢–u-.r\-«…—-s

Tpygm begané reasaname deubtlméhz the charges; 63:-

the affences under sectéms 392 and 397 of IPCI.

“ffzerefere, the impugned Judgment anti erder of

st’-§\”‘\/\.

cenvictien deee not can fer any interferenceffiy’

Court %n Criminai appeal Ne.9/2009 fgifxat isf%ieA§’i”jjjb§,i’*T¥é:heA ‘

accused. As such, the same deeer§:es::te..3:>e’–.;iier*nieee:i;

as being devoid of merits. V
CRIMINAL APPEAL ue,93ke;;E2eee

15. On carefui readirzgefe_ti§e eraser en
sentence passed ..,the;_’£Eée’i:§:a_§:*ri£e,–gtv’ie«.:..ii’iear that the
triaé ceurt ebgtei%§_eé5-e’1V*_V;i’ete.§_i:”regs–%;%i:_’f§;:m the Preiaatien
effieer asv’reqe;;ed u;~aee’r.,ti~.e reéevent provésierasef the
Preeatienef O?fenee:e’e’.e_§ie-.,4:’it reveaés that as an the

date efthe i:é%:ideet;.—t§€e Vaéicused had studied upte W’

et=er}d’¥e«£d ieeczmés mefiéev care’ eéecéeeed that his eeie ef

id:rttfg.._x§eef’;_$;S;.1V§88 as seen, he was agee zees than

‘ 19 years ea .e7e the date of the éncicient. It is further

from7’the impugned entéer en sentence that the

ire*;:’>ie:-t reveai that the famiiy of’ the accused was a

T e.§}es¢ectame famiiy in the viilage anti, Subsequent to

ehe incident, the accused studied upte SSLC and he

has been the eidest maie member of the famiiy having

(

15

no criminal backgrcaund and his parents were ready “»T.

and wiiiing to take care of the accused and 36 t_If:’a”:.f.r;_.é’___f 1′

wouid be improved in future.

16. Therefore, I am at’ the ézgnagidéréd_.’c:.p’ir§i{:;%f2–..__

that the ma! court did not”Tv;’a.mmi£- ény z§§¥’:*:;§;-v…..V§;fz.i3

extending the benefit of_1.pmv§s§.Sj{:%;_’a§ Pti-{:’ba§§;§Q{v§ of
Offenders Act he the acfifiééd:”a1r§§§:iv.f§§€éVf«$:A§3.*_Vraéeasing
him on probatsmj ._g;oc3;gi’V’§~;§. :;iif§é\:er, as
rightly subm%ttéf$«..V %4 __§§;fa r:f.eC””‘VVVHigh Caurt
Govern mam’: appeiiam:—State
in Crimina§:’V”:*%pl;§ea§V: having regaré ta the

fact thagthe L’€::.*:{§*’sg2%a’§n€*v_x£s:’aiLé sericusiy injured as a

I-§}éé’uit :g{‘seve:~a; :n§VL:r;?e’s infiicted by me accused ca

ms-%:;e%¢g%’Tang.’%{game parts sf her bedy, she couid net

A'”” g3.t aii’*-«4..thg*;”:;¥%~riTamer3ts that were mbbefi by the

:éc–z? £2£~e<3_, itifié Tris? Csurt eught ta have <22:-ectaci the

a';:';cu':;é§"" ta pay same reasanabie ameunt :3?'

zzshfigjénsation is the campiainant therem by invoking

£39 p:~c:vés%an sf Sectésrz S 9? PB. Act. Therefsre, I

(_,_~_/-'\-..—-\./