SN YHE H18}-f COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
E3/XTED THIS THE 18"' DAY OF JUNE, 2008
BEFORE
THE HQNBLE M
-'':'a _"'*
BETWEEN:
Sfiarveez Suifina,
Wfo Asfam Ahmed She-r£ff,
Hinciu, aged about 29 years,
Residing at No;13!1,
_ Vasantrza Niiaya,
22"" 'E' Main Road, %
18"' Cress, Ayodyanagar, _'-- ' »
J.P.Nagar. V Phase, 5;" ~
Banga!ere~56G O78. "' ''
_ V ....F'ETiTi0NER
1' T' * {££%V3(.V§_.;ri;K;;*\'»?§iL:a;-.i:¥ft__y; Aciv.)
1. The Stateef Ka %haiVaka,.v" A
_ _By Srirampuram Poiice, V H
Sangavfore
2' k.a.s:a%sn%%A;aam§¢:ea%sham
SR; .AF3__asu£¥' Shariffi, "
Hindu,_.aged_aTb¢§§t[30 years.
_ 3, 'M.uk£hiy§n*. éeguym,
" " = Afsaruifia Shariff,
_ Hindu, 'aged about 53 years.
¥Fteé;;:>éh£¥enis No.2 and 3 age
VR{atTThoda Layout,
" ~ inararzagar, Tumkur. ... . RESPONEJE NT5
(By Sri.Honnappa, HCGP for R1)
unfl-ns
R.JUST¥CE SUB?-EASE-i B.AD¥--'.. :"
:_f¢é§:29!a§rv:'érrit cazu$ec'lHf.53iy$i¢ai assault and a¥so threateneezf éhaig
marrk-éd Exs.P1 to P6 and M..O.1 was produced in the
is the complainant, PW2 is her father and i-'W3 Es
wétrsesss, PW4 is the ciocior and PWS is the investigating
This CrI.R¥'-' is flied U!S.39? of Cr.P.C. praying to set a$.ifi¢-:--,j
the order of acquittal dated 111.2508 passed by the Vi!
cw, Bangalore City in C.C.No.16'!53!2G02 and pagan'
respondents No.2 and 3 under Sectéores 498(A). 5D6{B)__a{:hd.32A3'~oLf 3 T
PC in accordance with law by ai!cwingt§’:isvCr¥;RP, V ”
This revision petition coming on for #1d.r_r1»E::s;i.on th.i§ ;;a}e$ A.«tr$é:\\\\r,,. ”
Ceurt made the fofiewéngz
This revision agair1siWftjhé” Vfiadgmegxt in
cRc.Ne.1ss53;2aQ2.i/ r r
2. SrEram’p:1ri;§’r;r p :<'.S'i§é;r:-:2 ¢?§;=;:rg'e éhéeééid the amused for the
offence puniéhablé uaéei;$§cz:§5-s§9§(A)_ 505(3) and 323 of rpm.
3. Air: is a4i’ieg§:d’r.évE3atAf- aacused had ifii-treated the
th:e3IL_’wi’¥ié §_<i'3£ :_§§c§fi'pr§:i'r§an€ in corznectien with dawn; harassment.
4"'i?ros_ec"utiA<$r:A in support at' E5 case examined PW"! to PW5
k.
5. PW? in he: cross examination has admitted that, afier
commaint givan as per Ex.F’2, there was a panchayath and ghég’ ”
acne is the husband’s house on 22.2002 and thereaftef’-éihe
gave bizth ta a male chiid an 21.4.2003. in-iih’e’cro$£é_ e>§a”;§¢iV?é2_etiVc:ar1~.i’.»
however she admits mat, the brather and f;’%t§je}.A_’_héVd §$érve§e»t c> :
accused house along with chopp:-$%._V:”a.:}_d sfizcsgd V aéfdaj “”i:”‘t§§s”:
connection first accused husband hacé’–{:£ e7§« ‘ai”-»<;c:mpl«éE'ni-Aagéinst
them H: the '¥"§£a¥o£§o::e staii€;fi_,*A
6. The ‘fries! C§:’L:’z*t««{;§:’:$idVz=:.-rixfsg fiie ‘ev§éé’fise._f§und that, there-
is no in$ependenti’§éEtE;#33%é”ftfif.t§1¢’*a§:E.§§aif’%§nV”téf assauft. Though it is
aileged that, t§:e”as;§§{a}{3g’§E§ §h’é_”preé§.ence of the worker in
the shag: of V Adi$r;;waVr%’ independent witrzess has
men examined id’ ibis statement of ihe PW? in the
c;r<;ss exa.n§fj§-::aVtic*n o:1!'§ '*s2é:c:v$ggf$ét:f*wai:, them £3 some quayrel between
thetwo' fa.ryf:iiie$,w.::c. fivazeréai is produseé to prove the offence.
errfif iiiiegaiity is pointed out by the petiiioner. This
_ ~..;t;;=;4ii3g.f_t?:e revésioa. I find no reason to Enterfere with the findings of
"..Y;3aA:§ 'TCaéL:rt. Except the compfainani: and her father. :39 other
.9{it3£:s;é.'a3s'héve been examined ant} the complainant herself in the
' creé;$"'Eéxarn§r:aticn admits that she has! gonetothe h:;sba:1d's