IN THE HIGH COURT 01? KARNATAKA, EANGA1.«ORE
DATED THIS THE 3011* DAY OF JULY, 2009 .f
PRESENT A' T.
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREED§{AR' §§z§{5":: 1:"
THE HOWBLE MR. JuSr1CE…§:.R.V 3
CrLA. N0.
BE’I’WEEN:~ J % ; u % H
SAJAN, «
S/o.sAMA1:» BRIG, _ V
AGED ABQU’I”=3i4′ *a:._ARs;*V ~
RIO. Np 24,’~-_l1 *
BANTAi’!_ PASHA =R:u.:LD1’NG;- _ —
PATHIMAGAULLI,
NEELASANDRA, _
BANGALORE–.– 5550 04?. ‘ ‘
= ” ‘- ‘ APPELLANT
– ,(BY._$§21 a;….I..!m.JEsH ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)
s’rA1’E 0’13’ RARNRTAKA,
E2EI3;._BYv_»f:¥FAT1″E PUBLIC mosacaroze,
X HIGH VQGURT BUILDING,
‘ ” ‘~ . __ “B,Al§GAL{)~’RE.
V’ RM. NAWAZ, ADDL. SPP)
” MAHITJVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE
‘ JUDGEMENT m’.15.3.o6 PASSED BY IV AD{)L. cm CIVIL
RESPONIDENT
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U[S. 374 CR.P.C BY THE
8:. SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, B’LORE CITY IN
4/
S.C.N{).453/O4 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/Ac;:Us:E1>,,
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UIS. 302 OF’.~~IPCw.A?-!’.D ”
SENTENCING HIM T0 UNDERGO IMPR1s0Nh;iENT”–F@R”—–.T ‘-
LIFE 8:. TO PAY A FINE OF RS.1(),0O0/- ANb.,11N”a3EF?WLT; 1*
OF PAYMENT OF FINE HE SHALL_IJN.D-ERGO Pores-., ‘
MONTHS. THE APPELLANT/ACCU.’3E{) Pf-2AYS’i”FE1I1’%TV.;TE*fE
ABOVE ORDER MAY BE SET ASII)E.”=
This appeal is 6:; four”-VHd’ ay%
SREEBHAR RM), J., delivered ths:_foflowin;g;_
The case of the __Syed Shahcer
(deceased) and PW2 ~
Syed Usuf. Of: p’.1nV. the accused and
the “and… the decreased had
assau1ttV§d’t}1.<§ gfizznc day at 1 1 pm. PW1 was
in the houv§c., P'Wé' informed that some boys told
" "the assaulting the deceased nearby the
and PW2 rushed to the scene, they
f_i_2.e;_ assaulting' the deceased and stabbing
V . The accused later on fled away. P131 and
the assistance of cws, PW3 and PW9 take the
to Bmvxing hospital. The deceased was found dwd.
1 had lodged complaint before the poiice. The statexmcnt
V of PW1 was recorded by the police at 40 mimztm past mid
'F
night on :26.12.2w3.'r1ae PM report discloses that th;¢"u
is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of '
to the chest. The death is a homicidaldeath. I K V'
charged for committing oficnces 'LU/is}. ?f
2. PW}, PW2 and
supports the case of t§_1c Brit ” cross.
examination conductcd mdnt1§._sJh they turned
hostile and givenaa go 1,~;,§._ given in the
examined by the
prosecutigg 1 asf. incident. The said
Wi§I1€SSi?%S at time of exanfmation-in~
chief 4′ “bu the basis of thc evidence
the; 1b14 . t.hc offence punishable U] s. 302
A % ‘ipc; is’
V’ :;’f§i*i?.:v”fRajcsh Rai, cmmsel for the appellant
shéniiouslyi ” that PW1 and ?W3 have turned
their evidence cannot be relied on. The
has not establishcd the mofive for committing
tlfi: oficnce. The evidence of PW2 discloses that the accused
” stabbed on the abdomen. But them is a stab injury on the