are THE 1"" CCU"? OF' A NATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2"'-"r= 3"!" OF' MARCH " B.angalore-560 05'}? L _:_ie :Petitioner (By Sri. A.N. t : Respondent
(By Sri.
,,.’£’li*.s~ Re-f-vision Petition is under Section
“397 r/’W:-4~.0 .Cr.P.C;””by the Advocate for pctitietier, praying
set asicie -the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated
by the by the or-.1,-.=..:’
Bang’alorc’R_uI’a1 district, in C. O. NO. 867/ 2002 confirmed by
the A Co-art-i’v’, Bangalore Rural district,
eBangaiore.56/2003 Dated 10.12.2004.
” ~ A This. petition coming on for hearing, this day the Court,
« 4′ mafia renewing:
Qt
V. ._ The petitioner-accused is for a.-1. et’!’e.-aw
(.0
X 1juI1isl1a_b1e LI,/s. 32- 1. \.J, he is we-:–t–d to undergo simple
Q~ Q’r’v’~€’L}.4’/L.
1 III 4;: nrnina
irnpfisonmcfit for a wfi of fnoflths. 00 pe3t_ a fine
of Rs.500/ -, in default of payment of fine, to ..for-
one month by the Judgment of
sentence dated 03.09.2003 -; I
Ilaniafsmfq nnnnninnn ‘Diurnal it-L
:.uq.5|nunu. , :..:unaIJ5Ia.|ru.|\a n\I.uaau.V,u.s wave; “L_’loIu.J\.ll’>[._I’-.If|aAl’\J=-‘L-o ‘ ‘urn;
‘ appeal, the District
Bangalore. rural man-ict. Juagnaent dated .
10.12.2004 passed in appeal-
fil-_ ~y the 0;: ..Im,;,_mc_=I;L
follows:
o%n0.05.01.:a001 at. about. 8.30 .111, when
E?!’
luI.r’|« 5″,”! .8. vvluln.-I J’-ovwtollulal-Ila
at Jakkasandra viiiage. there was
.disr1ipfl0r§’of”:iéiecuicity in the street and lights had. gone ofi’,
0 W H K also joined PW.1 they. were discussing about
Subet lights. At that point. of time-_, accused-petitioner
” 4; _, :1 , ___ , “1 , l”I _ _
Lvifilllca LU LI..l\v 3vI4I.I.’u IIIJIIJII 913.111 all
E
I
i-n I-I-us run-u: I-nn.’Ia-II rt turning
11 1′-‘lifi 1’ll’I’I.’|’ nn_-n-I
lull” I ‘1 – aJ4l\-l
[-
CL
P’v’v’.1 on his back, when P’v’v’s. ‘2 8: 3 went -to
rescue PW. 1, petitioner assaulted them
caused bleeding injuries. On the same
the jurisdictional police, lodged c:oiopLsxi; al1smn:- 1
a dim”: 1- lnnhnqnu ‘1’:’~:.’u-I
accused with regard to a
assaulted him. After’ 1.
police filed sheet for the offence
punisiiable Lus; ziiisos so A
3. oi’: its case, examined
P.W.1 l as 2 and also got marked
M.O.1 O1iie’iopprcciaoon of the oral and
V docuixientaiy it the Courts below the
Mm _ and s.*;Iit.e:1.cm’d ..i.’11 stated herein bsfom.
_ witnesses examined. P.W.1 is the
V it . He in. his evidence has stated that on-
:z_iate”‘ of incident, after completing wo:-rk, he was
to his house; as thorns was no electricity, he mid
,,_..1gx
u’v’s.’2 6%. 3 ‘v’v”‘i’fi ‘ulfiikiiifi “‘u:-out these-me, -‘ “-
‘t “*’-“”t of
9′-
li.;t.=.0w;v
4.3…. 1.1.. ….._4..l4.S…_.. _….= …._._.._,… ____…_J ” _ _ ” …_.’IA___’I 1_J__ __.u_’I_ .___I_ _I_ A;_
LI.I.l1C, LL16 IKJUUCHIEI CHIIIC EIIIG. asaaulwu fllfll WIUI Cy CD311}
on his back, on. hearing his cry, P013. 2 8; his
rescue and the accused assaulted them .
complaint as per Ex. P. 1, on the méithdaar, he
the I*lel9.:%% ..eap.tal A ” ~ He ‘
deposed that there –was 1
with regard to site the sisters
of PW.l and injured the
cvidchcc of 1’;f;f cf EH3, 1 1:9 3
“I” 1″‘s _V”t-:a”_j’__’t:’t:_u’.’; =91 g-14″‘-.;~..:;+t th- =—1.1—.t. I-“fu’.5-
a~
panch of and eyewitness to
the _ pm’-Ich witness. for scene of
V oocutfmmc, ‘ié as Ex.P.2. For the reason best-
F
VII-;I.IuIIn.fJ.lo Allan! manna IA: loll»!-I
“,’1’;h¢ pmfl”e(‘l,IHn. n fnilg fn nvnminfi {-
‘I’ll-
iii tile case i.c., investigation oificcr,
_ doctbr the injured persons and it has to
W H K wound certificate.’
” V’ :14-1,11,!-Ina:-I I111′–‘I-‘run-IQ:-I II’!’:’u’I_ Inga-In-II-I4-I +1′ tutu-st-nan:-Idfiur
lull’: air’:-13\.I.”_lilI-I ll’-74′: “‘\I.’IuI:I [$3.31 II) 31”; to’:
5. Admittedly, there is.an.enmity.between P’W.l and
“Inn;
\
5% fltwsu. ‘v*~’1»
A__!_
s by the viz,
I-‘Ws-. 2 to 4 are closely related..to PW.1,t as
sisters and mother of PW.1 and as such,
witnesses. The oral testimony ozfs. 1
f.!f_lI’!’£.!l’J£=.5…!*.l;9!.! by any ind.e,rz-ex-…ri|.mt;.!.Iarit;,:1.ee-n.es.
of non-examma-‘ t tion of V’
and non-marking of «wotgifii 6f°tl1e injtmed
witnesses,-. the prosecutjpnt the
PWs=.
. …-. 31 .;.;. -…..’x..” 1.. .._- .. … ._..____
are ass’ -tea; fer .e;T’1{:-‘i’i*€”:.’-iu1n;is;n=”ta%x1u’:; i’ t: = itneasca,
the All these aspects
of the éonaidered by the-Courts below-
and arrived at a wrong conclusion
cf t.h.e«efl’eI1%
ti’ir”:.,v’5r*f_”==”*”mu1er1y cf wiiznesses.
_is ex§§Iae§é.tion for the delay in lodging the
The incident has on 05-0-1–2001 but
euinptamt is. lodged on 06-01,2001. The. material on
~ may 1-=-…….t=d to 9. seem eusp*n*m=- M’ *’=– -W”–“‘ be-.1:-g
lllolllll W-Jul» Ialnlld Q1!’-II-4|1.¢I.I
(Q: Q’~\./\,aI_,I\t_{,L__.,
guilty of offence, but meme. suspicion
would not by itself be suflicient to -hold. the
The prosecution should prove its case
doubt. Thus, the order of oonv1c;i1e:i 7. V
-I-‘In
by usfi Ceurt” ~ 1e1,i-L .w’*im in”vth1-‘Eta:
revision Hence, the
The 1se%a11ewede. The
judgment; e ] ooxavicmen L .§§’:fntenee dated
10. 12.:;oe:1«k *Di£1*ict Judge, Fast
Rural district,
Appeal No.56] 2003 and
t11c”Juudg1ner_1tAIedet:e:§”»»03.03-.3003 passed by the
Chief “Judieie1A’~«._Nian’giatrate» Bangalore Rural
flaistfiet, i’11″‘~.x’.”,;v.§;,_.1″t’:. 130 -zwz are set aside.
I
by the shall. sit.-a..r1r1
The fine amounts if any paid by the
~*.pct1 t”ioI1er shall be refunded. to him.
Rd,-
..,w–‘
judge