2
:zs.1,oao./- on EACH coum Tom. as.2,99§22}”%$f%’%%i§i’~.k
QEFAULT TC} UNDERGQ 5.1. FGR 3 MQNTHS.
This appeai taming er: fer hearirifi tif’;’isA ;déy,’
deiivered the feliowing p _ A
JU9GM§fiI”
The convicted ac:§a.:.5«’ed §§%;.’ §;.;;feaf” ‘ééaiiést the
judgment in S.C.127/Oi} Fast Track
Court, Gadag, the accused
for the offerzté 498-A and 306,
:.:=.<:.
2. Hgard tha_§g3:%r;éd_[“c.§unse¥ for the appeflant, Sr?
Narasinga’sa. ‘S%in’gi*i JJ5éa?’¥1飒:¥ Gevt. Pleader, Sri
Ramesmiiumar.’-» ., ‘ V’
v_’:L_’~”~Cc;{jte§_:tuai ‘fae.:ts..-an the basis of which the accuseé
‘–.faf.;& 5 –.tif¥¢’s.iv4″ar§ti%.A§fsms Liltimateiy found guiity, are:
was we of the dauahters of
1Shiva4i9ayévpgp.a” Chabberabhavi, resident of Lakkundl. He
“..be§ff6r:nedf her marriaae with the appeiiant fear years prior
-}td ‘§f§i§ incident on 5.5.2000. During marriage, they
‘ “”w.VVV;$Vf§ésented customary gifts ahéi arranged the wedding in the
W2’
13
witnesses and reiied cm 9 decumemts. The a_ccii=:s§d_
piaaded innocent and relied on UDR.4/013″”ifiAtj_i;é§itr.’.:ji_”,
conducted on the body af the victintg. He.ai*sé:fjifaiiéi3 an it
the statement of the ccrmpiainant inarkeéflaigéxis’;-i:$2′:a_§ié;vt it
93 ta show that it was ;*:t:.=tV_A_a caéé j4$ii;”iz:i_;<$e, fi:b'I.V}Vt' aitase of
actidentai fire resuitinq land Pushpa.
f) The §e§r:%:§d_ trigfiiii the evidence
so breught :fa;i:::_::fie~:f:t§e2″fd::«’ii: é$t&b¥i$hifiQ the
charge both offences and
consequiéntiig “i the impugned judgment,
santemcina teiiifiuafit-t far 2 years far the offence
punigshtfiié’ iiiwdétawa-;ti_¢;: 498-A, i.P.C. and SI. for 3 years
‘v._fcr;’ti3Ve; -::f_fen’cie””*u__nder Section 306, IP13. Aaainst it, the
aécaiised is ‘i4;’tj–a ri’;§éai.
I4. hiiiiiiiéétfiiiétii in mind the cententions raised in the amieai
‘ta-gé:ihstA ttie impugned judgment, I have re–appraised the
16
burst, deceased suffered injuries and the child which iiijes.
in the muse eccidentaiiy came in contact with
bath died as e rauit of such sufference. The S.&..Ci§i§d’s.etvi’er e.
facts which is incensistent with the
committed suicide. Whenfiiiere ei4fe”jA’timioVV.,yers§b’ssvleieeied by
the prosecutien on recdidiki fchareesheet,
there is new reason eriiy ti3e’*wvi1iei_i_ i,fe.§ie”:i’iabie to the
accused siieuid. etiiieisisise, whee twe
views are__pess.i<e'ii,e;:".;_:aigiie Eisiiifevoureeie tea the
eccused iiesAide.'–afi€ee;éti§§§-'.,._§.–,r eeuris. is View of this
settied pesitsien, evideeee is not very
cesvinciiig to si1ewV_V_i':ii1et she accused had induieed in any
f'e:'&cdris.peI his wife-Wemewwe ts commit suicide
es'fiiet__ ifie~iiiie.di id-ve'sy way abetted commission ef suicide
'dby her… i;'ifi:ei*i'Athis ddubt arises, the accused wiii be
" 'A'eI§i:'itied :5 'ties benefit.
. ‘ ihe ieemed triei judge has he deubt referred to the
“ie:cTi?isninetine pert ef the evidence, but has feiied be take
note of the first report submitted by PW5 and ether
33/
18
Fine amount éeposited by the accused is !.’J¥”fi饔éd.”~fifV<_§:"««.¢l»_'.5&_
refunded. V