High Court Karnataka High Court

Satish S/O Shivappa Chikkalli vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Satish S/O Shivappa Chikkalli vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 August, 2008
Author: R.B.Naik
IN THE HIGH COURT op KARNATAI<xL u   

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD  

DATED THIS THE 13% DAY ()1? AUGUST?    2  2

BEFORE    
THE HONBLE MR.J_US'I'ICE R.B.NAli{. X  e

CRIMINAL PETI'TI(V)1V$--.eaI:$¥o.712"4'z2 O{)8;  s
Between .. V 1 .

Satish S/0 Shivappa * V
Aged: 25 years, O.c<::,VStud-entg, , -  
R/0  o y 2  
Byadgi Taluk, Havezii 'i3ist1ic£;   

     _ _* ..Petitioner
(By Sri.S.N}.Nav:aiag1:ne:do4.&  C.Banakar, Advocate)

And _V V _ V
The  .... 

 'Kagi'neIe* "Felix Complainant

 =   Benc11.,'*A1:.f)ha1Wad.

By._Sfat'o. ePu1)Iie_P1fosecutor,
High (39:11-tvvI3'oi1di3:1g;'

. Respondent.

‘:{;I§33?VV§-*3:7i.Vl?f.}{z.(‘}otl<}1indi, HCGP)

. A Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of

praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
. _ of Mudalg Police Station.

venlade the following:

This petition coming on for orders this day the Court
5§Qs>m.o;,:JrL_.

Q_13.1?.lE..3iE , >

A case in Cr.No.3/2008 1,751–.-.2GCf«8

for ofienoes punishable unde1’TVf.§eetioiis ‘V1143,

324, 307, 302, 504 age 5o6,L},I.w’we,,_;4§o gggainst the
petitioner and ten as A– 1.

The coseaplafmanf: one the deceased.
tie is an -eto in question. He
in his :i}I.§:._f:.I.Vs there was a quarrel
between the one hand and himself

and his regard to the shed which was

“‘p1;t front of house. All the petitioners were

‘shed should be removed, at their instance,

the.eI_;ied However few poles were yet to be

..,%.j,T’_;’:..«._fe:moved; That on 16-1-2008 at about 8 p.m. the

‘ returned to his house afier attending to the

. operations in his land. He had dinner and to

ibuy betel nuts he was going to the nearby shop. When. he

was so going, petitioner/accused. herein along with Mahesh
K 6; ex

3

Basanthappa Kammar, Shekharappa, –f ”

Danappannavar, A-3 Shivappa, A-4

house and started removing the of” j

They abused the complainant

foul and filthy language. theih»

and lit fire to them, eemplainant
Shivappa and the the said accused
persons apesre . Despite the
same, the clubs iying at the said
place and with a club in
his of Shivappa causing him a

bleediI1g.. picked up another club

the complainant tried to intervene

Accused Shekappa fisted on the

V faceAo.:f_; accused Lingaraju with a club assaulted

‘ ” the of the complainant. Accused Kumar with a

assaulted on the forehead of the complainant.

Cmziplainant and injmed Shivappa started Wailing out. The

“complainant brether’s son Anand came to their rescue.

is,,&m

Accused Shekappa with a club assaulted his

head. Prakash and Lingaraj also assamted’mfi§jgd”{vith

hands. One Chennabasappa Viv..a.§1¢fiso ‘:

assaulted by Manjappa wit11V__ea~ .$P’io1t1d-ef.

Shekappa assaulted rod on the
right knee. Yashoda, the complainant
intervened. assaulted her.

club. The villagers
att1’acte:i”‘b§} :i¢;:_; came to the scene of
occmrehee. went away from the scene

of ” has occurred at about 10-30

” ‘I 1″-accused persons who are alleged to have

not only Shivappa Basappa, but

The complainant has not explained as to

V-how 1 could identify these petitioner/aocaxsed alone

on the head of the deceased Shivappa and

etiributed a specific overt act to petitioner A-1. A-2 Mahesh

‘ who is claimed to have assaulted with a club on the person

of Shivappa and A«-3 Shekappa who is claimed to have fisted,
.R,QL£_J\{E;,;3’~—-««

prosecution or witnesses for prosecution.
shall regularly attend the trial Coutft.

‘ . 1:, £%%; f & W

-%:% Iudge %”

Sbb/«