High Court Karnataka High Court

Shri. Appugouda S/O Shettigouda … vs The State By The Additional State on 26 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Shri. Appugouda S/O Shettigouda … vs The State By The Additional State on 26 August, 2010
Author: Arali Nagaraj

Building Campus Office of

Prosecutors, Dharwad. …Responden”t–.»

(By Sri.Vinayak S Kulkarni, HCGP)’

This Criminal Petition is filed undVer”rS.ec_t’ioni T

439 Cr.P.C. seeking to grar:.’t””‘regi,1i’,ar_:.ifiieiliiiin
S.C.No.1S3/2010, pending on:nit1éiiei~’m’e.

Track and Additional Se’ssi.onsit’Court;’V”‘ii.;u1gke:’riVi

which is registered punisiiaime Section

302 R/W 34 of IPC.

This Crimi’i1.5_1l P;e’titio’«n s.¢m;ng.ttinn for orders

this (1 ay, th g QC adreu «fo’1Tow”i n g:

0RDERt

Peti’t,io’ner T’ =”and 2 herein are

respeivctiyeif ~.’3i§3C1i'{Se.C1 Nos} and 2 in Crime No.

iisii./izoiiioji fvpr isimeshwar Police Station

pending on the file of the

_ Fast.Tr.ac}{‘«:’*(§ourt, Hukkeri. They have sought for

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Their earlier

in Criminal Petition No.7519/2010 came

c~

DJ

to be dismissed by this Court for non~

prosecution.

2. These two petitioners-accuseydl’ax-El.W

alleged to have committed murdeif_””~o:fffoneiT’

Dundappa Appaji Inchanalefl

years, the husband; cornf:alairian:tt.”‘i V

Srrit.Kallavva.

3. On careful rfgiiahdiiiihgylxovf’4th’§;:Va’SJ_¢rments in
the both the
petitioners:’aoc.1i1sle–d’.a:5§.5:é’k$1_1′-ecl:l’._:’lh_ei”deceased with
“kurpi”Vviv{‘a”vsrnalllis;i=ekle«)–:ran’d*v-thiereby inflicted on

his person4:fatjallffir1je1ivri.e:’s’despite the complaint

reqL1es_ting'”‘~th’err12_ assault the deceased

§hatAheAV”‘w’a–s”aged person (more than 65

:VE’.:_:IV.1f’j,’V’.::V1’1′.;.: might die if assaulted PM

exainiinavtion;’izreport reveals that the Medical

i3V~’«.___Gfficer” y_\Aa*1~ho conducted PM examination noticed

dead body of the deceased incised

c_.-.f\”””‘””‘””

wounds over right hand, right foot, left foot,

near eyes and ears contusions over both the

shoulders and multiple small abrasionsfloivetirpriii’..,,

infront of chest, upper and lower limbs

the said injuries were antemoftezni’in7.natu_re_i._l’n”

the opinion of the Medical _Offiicer’,v. thepiciaijuse i’

death of the deceased waisyiclue of

liver.

4. Whepvthieri were
responsible of liver of
the his death is a
fact to prosecution at the

trial of the-«.Vcase;__ l35.1.irtiili’1er, it is not in dispute

“V’*t.hat~ifihe_Ddeceais’e’d-….w’as aged between 65 and 70

of his death.

flfiaving regard to the above facts and

ifii.cir’c’un1stiances of the case, I feel that both the

€_’,”‘–.:H\”””‘”””””‘