{By,Sri Bhag--z1_.va1L /\'CI"Vf_)' «V
. vv ' » Siate. of .'_i_<V:11"nz-21':1k"£"1j;-?by
L'i0bbaspe"{ Police' Respondent
‘(‘y_»S’z”i ¥1<I,2_-1;'a1:1Vi1k:1:' P, GP)
IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALO§§E
Dated this the 7"' day of December, 2-010 _.:
Before A' j
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUJ/41)] 1'
Crirninal Appeal 83:9«.'/ A 1 ' V' " Vv
Between:
E Ramakrishnaiah, 29 yrs
S/0 G-am gar:.1m21i;-1h
1′-.J
Shivaruju, 25 yrs ~ 1_ _
S/oDaEia1iM’ariyappa ‘- ‘
3 Appai;1h.28
S/0 Pu{iz1s_i1npura’~H0’n!Vi, .Ne]z1:’11a111g2iE=a Tq
Ba:1g;1l():’c R:1:_’:1i [.)i..=’*;tric.t ” Appekiants
Ami_,- 1′
6
convicted the accused only based on presumption without there being
legal evidence on record. It is also submitted, in viewt»-ol’t._Vthe
inconsistency in the material evidence on record and al.s.o_ in _
Register though the nantes oi’ accused 4, 1.2. 11. 9.’ttttd–.t§ttC “R;tj’a._ was
mentioned. but the complainant has not w1his;t;’e;’ed ahythin’g ‘£1″b:(‘f>et_1t”‘ti?¢1_t-3
accused and with in will and pi-cvim-,«–..i_;i()ttxée-,_ i_1~.t,« it ~h.:_-ta’ titled {lg
complaint against the 4″‘ accused .a_lle.g_ed to one
Suvama, friend of PW 1 i1’S”l.ll1l?::.a1:i’. accused have
been falsely implicatedvin the g::ist::.–=t::triiti1e_’tfe_ for the offence
and accordingly; lffot of the accused as
there is no ” .’
that PWs l, 3 & 4 ate the eye
witnesses to ii.i,icideiit.._ Ti1t>’ug.h’l’PW 4 has turned hostile, PW I who is
..~!he C()t’;’If:’J;lt1ivI_1A£jti’.iV, hasit{so___n:entioned the names of accused l and 4
‘t’–e_gtt::dit1g th.e”assatiEt.._ So also, the name of the 4″‘ accused is also
meiitioned b}IdPW_ the injured along with the I” accused. Apart front
‘ that, PW 1. has also stated about accused 2 and 3 in general regarding
‘ theirVint5o.lve.mei’1t and assault’. The trial court while aequitting the other
commissioii oi’ the <)t"i'e:1ce. His specific evidence is, due to previous ill-
– i . ‘ . . .. ‘ ‘ _s __ ‘_’
will as the 4″ accused committed murder of his daughtei s lnend by
name Suvarha and in this regard, since he had filed it compla_int_i ‘a..ga~i.11st
the 4″ accused, with that motive. the accused have C’:]l]lI”l”li'{i_t:€i..
offence.
t’ii”v’»..t-3.’ .
Of course. this witness was also ci’oss«exarni1ied. ‘He~{ha–s.asserted =
that Rainakrishnaiah / 1″‘ accused Zl.Sf..Sf_£_lili’l’i~it3(‘i~_»_t)I’t his’=l.eft and 4″‘
accused Shivanna assaulted <)1i".tiie.let't halrid Aa'l_~:_e on the fingers of
the left hand. There a'ppe211's,t(3"he:":;<.)me"'sexaggeo1'&a'tiit)n. According to
him, none of the n.eii«',<_1_l1l".:-:'(_):j'_ had: eonte to_»refscue him. He asserted, when
he feil on tl1e_g_rotI'n.ci;"'i'id.;ig11ev,r_t'l:eaccused vaiho assaulted him. it is also
stated by trim. tliiat t'ViiCii~3*'1%i,VAEtC'tjtI4Sۤi.'i1SSdt;litCd him with a club measuring
about 2 3 yards. " In the cross~exainination, he tried to assert
that ztccused assat1l.ted A V
2 PW' 3i 'C}'_i:'._iya:ni11tt is the wife of the injured Thirumalaiah.
Aec()1'diiig to'*her'_.' PW l and 2 were going to the fields and on hearing the
V 'se_1ea1"i;s.;–.si1e went to the spot and found the accused there in. front of the
Appcai is aEE0wec1 in part.