IN THE HIGH coam OF KARNATAKA Mj é}at~}éAL?3;aré'
ones THIS me 23"' aA:vMo:=% A x
§>3E%:c§:2E *% %%%%{
THE HUMBLE :.a\s2.Ju sfiCéfgioH;;N"'
§_j___RI_M_]_;N-AL m.%33%1;2o0s
BETWEEN: 'V "
1. R.B.g:h.1aa;i:ras;x:i.a"-. f
.
Aged .29i._y’t;*;a1*s’ ‘ V _ ¢_
,QCC1.AAg7§iC1.’ii§13I€”‘..
:2, “sb1vam:a’V’j”–»._’* J
S’,’Q.1”332’1appa. f. ”
Agéé.._422VVyeé;_rs’. ” & s
— ,(}c<::: 2§g_::ée'L13.t11ré. "
RL;.B.Vcera'§3ha€irappa
.5/«O-Byrappa
3 T. 24. gfgam, Dec: Agriculttmc
All 1:] (3.R11{11€'&p"I3J.'
— ‘§.’ipt’ui~ Taiuk, Tumkur Dist. .. :>>r2:’rI’rI01~:ERs
.. ,_(13y”s;~; “<1.T'.Rayareddy, Adv.,)
The. Statt: of Kanzataka
Repby its State Public Presmcutor
Advocate Generafs Ofice
High Court Buildings _V
Ifiangaiorexl .. RESPQ.N_I§}EN"F 3
(By Sri B.BaiakIi:.~:4::na, HCGP)
This Crl.RP. is fxied unc1t:;*',Sé3&)n 49.1 ~;cj’.’~,x§3;%’ the A
advocate far the petitionefsprayiizg ihat §’.§_QI}’i)3.6 C~:3.1i.:”1.
may be pieascd to set aaidcé the <::.rcit:.r 23.7.2005
passed by the II Ad(i1,§:'i€;S'siQns Judgé, Tumkur, in
Crl.A.No.1?'{20m c;:311fi1111;i11g.VL'thé'-~_erder"dated 28.3.2600
passed by the Civil Judge i§)_n.._)"'and JMF'C., Tigtur, in
CC.No.493/ 1998 and 'acquit i:~}:::=.'=; pfititignsrs.
This C1f"1'.RP. txémfig, this day the Court
made the ,
4K §RnER
'1'h_Vi s. r{évi'.§i»:;1*1'«.:_;§}€ti*ei0nT is filed by thfi convicted
accused are tried for thfi effences
A §11;IiiSha§.§ie.._under Sections 3:23, 324 r/W. Sectien 34 of
" . . IPC; A Cour: afiar recording the evidence and
$i'te i§_1ieaI'ir1g the parties, comricted the accused ti)
" VT Lunciergo imprisnnmemt fer six manths arid to pay a fine
'of Rs.1,0{)(}/~ each. 'I'he said orderr of cazmviction is
canfirmed by the Sessians Caurt in (31*}.A,N0.17;"2GQO.
§-I"
-3- ._
‘2. The case of the prcsecufien in brief
accused 1 to 3 were abusing the c0n1p1a3.;1axifi A13″;
fiithy Language en 6.3.1998 at ?.4OG_”j§’;:ii.: .’;:1iVi€i 1
poifit Qf time, P’«Ev’.;2, the brothér Gffiié ifiréiit ”
and asked the accu5ed’pa $’~V..:Q 1;x%hy__
them. Being eziraggé, $3}- r;).if .a”-»sj_1d;:§éi:,V.,.a{3:::us€d N’G.3
assaulted PWK2 »:j;i:;1§:2._ sicie of tha bad}?
and aCCL1$ff3{§::’:?*§€3. 1;; an 131$ chest
pezfiicifi if time, ?Ve’s.3 arid 4
ilitéfiizéféfifi. ,#2’é~s pacifiad. it is the fflfthfif
case oftfié .}:;}i*{}St:-§:i;’i,’fi3;>I1 that accused Na} assaulted
‘-}?W.a_},o11 his left”‘<:h€ek.
V’ ta substantiate its case, the prosacution
A all 8 Witzmsses and got marked 4 exhibits
.A ; £3~’11Wi&i ‘t..’\:.§a’yG materiai Gbjects. PWs.1 arid 2 are the injured
V’ ‘«:’:f;e wi1:11esses, whereas PWs..’3 and 4 are irndependent
eyfi witriézsses. PW6 is the doctor who treated the
\f7
,4-
injured, Fwsfi and ‘? are flm witnesses’…
mahazar, PW28 is the Investigating
ixavestigation, has iaid the c:hg1:fge__ sh§t递.’ ‘ ~ 4.
are the wound ceflifwates osf " 3. PWJ being deposed that the in filthy language at about and at that point sf the: accused why they Wérg enraged, ail of 3. Z PWZ2 with stones,
1*esuifing ix: Lika-Wise accused No.3
gxggssaulteci stones and ciub. When the
interssaned, he was assauited by accused
._ 1″.’ point {if time, PWs.3 and 4 i11te1*vei1ed
fiacfliédv quarrel. Nothing Wcsrthwhiis is eliciteci in
‘ * .¢3;1eVti1’0s$«<§xa1§3i11ati0x1 of F'W.2 ta: discartil his evidence.
"'i'}ie evideznca <31' PW.1 is supported by the evidence of
PW2, who is amathex' eye witness. PW2 is norm other
V'
than the brother cf PW. 3. The evidence pf these,
witnesséts is goiasistent and fully supports of
the jZ3I'0S€C1JI§.GI"3.. PWs.3 and 4 are the 6:5,'-*5-:'
witnesses, who intervened
they are irxdependent eye "
have believed the iegard “£6
their consistent argd re13abi§:- {%videnéé.~v~.. Eizen an F6-
appreciaiion of the’% _§i>1é “»:fécord, there is 110
gonad to and 4.
0f the lady Medical Ofiioer,
Whifi-.t§’eai;edVVV 2, d€pi)$€i’-d that these injured
$11stairi4édV_Vce;ft:ai1i’v_SiIIiVp1e injuries. PW .1 sustained only
“~§3.§l3I’i¢’::Si{‘}fl on th6″‘Ih<t;e and whereas PW2 has S1}.StEiiI1€:d
_?.t31*1é:"'».:3gE'}:;*ex':3i€;;:"1 and swelling over back porticm of the
(ioctor has capined that these injuries are
sifiggiisa in naturez. On over all appre<:iat.i<}11 0f the
V * .._«=.§;ridsnce, this Court finds that the conciusian reached
by thé Caurt-:5 below is just ané proper.
W
35.
5. Sri ‘V.T.Rayaraddi, learned co1333s£:’1:22fi}:t§:a1ing
on behalf of the petitianers submits Quad
accused art: cousins izlter-»$;e….a11d <;:.~{ ti1e <
same viilage. Shame the i:1<:ie§:§.§,=0f}3Ié«.§fi’uri11g agriculturai opemtiuns. H3
p0iiii:s;….g:.3t that the petitieners were already in
‘ 10 to 12 days in this matter: In this
.7 Virietv 03′} f9;._’1€: matter, he prays for ieniezlcy in the mattar.
:5. As aforemenfiongid, this Cuurt does not find 813.3?
V’ afror ii} the order of conviction cf {I16 Courts below. Thf:
Courts beiaw haw rightly (3{}{1ViCb€{Ii the accused far the
\\2?
.3.
It is made clear that since tha . hVav<=.:
already undergone ixnprisonment, "
undergo imprisonment any fL?Lrthé1'.« é_
With the aforesaid'_Vmod1;fim2*:ioITi, m«3£'imi1'1al
revisirzsn petition is