IN THE HIGH Comm 052' KARNATAKA AT BA:;€2«.k:;,:§%:2'_a; '
DATED THIS THE 301% DAY OF 3
BEFORE; T
'THE H{)N'BLE MR,,1usT:C13fr;,RAMA.?JNA " V %
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION" %N0.%;0i2c§o4.
anrwaax; ~
1 SMTPANKAJA -. *
w/Q RvpRAswAMm=:>.w--1z -
$5331} '25; KQUSE YNIFE
RIG.DE\?ALi§3£§2W133'§A5?ALYf; "
BLoR;:4";2'Lt.1¢:m¢;--_V ' PE'I'I'E'1ONE:R{S§
(By s:~i',?é:?:at B s:g;a;;g,:».:m ADE';
AW: _ V ._
2. RUD§;'xSWvAM¥'__@'Rb¥}i}i?ASOMACHARY
. :'Ié;'CJ.SUGA.NA'CHAR'I, AGEEDSZ8 YEARS
. €f1"EACHER, FE_;'.Q_,__C§C'NDAHé.LL§ FARM,
H2:sAmHAT'rA HOBL1, ELORE
2 " V H;:v;,§;sA"r».z:44;a
-__ W";'{§:SUGf%§ACHARI§ $359.42 YEESFES
. 'v'HoU:~::a:':~mLD, R/O.G€j)NE)AHALLi FARM,
Hggsagsaawa HOBLI, BLGRE
3 V£é:§:'RABHAamCHAR;
AA ' 4_ S/QSUGANACHARE, AC'%ED.i34 YEAIQS
HOUSEHFJLD, I2/O.G{}NDAHALi..I FARM,
"HESARC%H.A'F'"FA HOBLE, BLORE
% ...4--r§ STATE, :3"? Ih¥SPEC'I'C5R op' mucg,
SOLEDE.'V£;NfkHALLI PO {ACE STATECJ N,
BANGALORE. RESPONEENTS
{R-4 AMENDED VIZO. DT. 18/é/12064}
("E
5;
fl-/"
{By sri/smz : SHYAM KOUNDINYA A.S., ADV, ;§*0R
ANDSRIB.BA1AKR'1SHNA,H.C.G.P,FORR~4) " ' J '
iiiriti
THIS CRLRP. IS FILED UISX 3?'8{.'§'}' T<::¥;é' cm. §51*%:.*S,"&*.£1§i:::._:'1'
BY ME PRL.C.J.M. B'L().}"€E;..__ RURAL 1:>I;;:='1'.'E?.i1.:::>§a1:;, .115?
rje' §'Ov:Rf'»..L}i£;iARI1'J(} THIS DAY,
coummm THE Fou,Qw;'N<:;:v__ ,. ----
'This iS"f&eé§ by the petitioner W219 is
110116 igf fespondent No.1 challenging
the cQn*e{§t;na esvs 01' the judgment and Qréer of
6/T2003 passed by the leamad
giflgalere Rural Dist. Bangalore, in
C. Qfrsie. ';.7'.??i {£398.
The case of the pefitioner hereizz is that she is
wééded wife ef the resmndeni No.3. and their
was performed on 15/6/1997. They started
residing 1'21 the quajtcers sf Gondahalli Farm along with
respondents 12 and 3 who are no-n crther than Hiflthfjf in
law and brother in iaw of petitioner,
married fife for about 3 to 1L2o;’1f:h$_, fffiggsgafier,» 1′.
respondents started to iflwtreafifxg
cruelty and started harassingixcr of
Rs.30,000/-. Thereforg, =za_:~’&¢nfi to fior parents
house, brought the saio it to respondents
but they be;x:%g: okjw:onotooo 1g.rv:t:1f. ‘ the said amount
continued her to bring house
properi*3?é1i:;l:.:ofo:: started harassing her
both mantany and thrt-zatened her that if
she fails 25* too ‘House property fmm. her parents
‘ A..m;,;’;”§,:.é, %fif:§;*+’sa_(fo1:I(‘IVV’i§fii’iIAV her by bumjng, and she was driven
‘s house. Therefore petitioner started
livifig if1__’;5arents house. 011 30-06-1998 the father of
:;et§i:ioi1£2:’:’took her to respondent’s house but respondents
?c1i_%:i’»;”:/’
respondents pieaded not guilty and claimed
behalf of pI’OS€C11ti()I3 6 witnesses were u 1.1
documents were marked, ¥.§zhere§1%s €_<51:: of
respondents 2 witnesses wtéém .¢xafi91i%iC€i
came ta be marked. The e12ftc1;:_a:.;.j3p1':€:écia{i:1g 2:116
evidence placed cm z%;:q:u§ift*djfiffiajgondents 1 to 3 of
tha charges levelled the petitiener
-~ complailzaizt up y§»’i1′;i*1V revision petition.
Since thé’ Stétg preféfféfii any appeal against the
judgtnénfalatl by the trial Court.
_ .3. I fiézzrg; c9:’efii.I1§%”‘:exami:1ed the materials placed on
nltis an iiiidiéputed fact that the petitioner is the
L…Iégau}ly:i;§s£g:i{i§d:’.iwife of respondsnt: No. I, In Pam.6 9f the
ofd–::: 1* Aéhaiienge, the tria} court has observed that
No.1 is said to have sugpected time fidelity of
_ «’ gyétitfaner which ameunts to cmeity as contended by {he
wpétitionar. 1%’ resgondezlt is a pubiic: servant, The giving
wrist watch, ring 3333., during manriagé is Customary.
According to tile rev£si0n petitioner, R’s.30,{}O{)/- is $3316 to