Loading...

State By Manchenahally Police vs K Rajashekarareddy on 12 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
State By Manchenahally Police vs K Rajashekarareddy on 12 January, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao B.Adi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12"' DAY OF JANUARY 2030 

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MFMUSTICE K_seEEDHAe_.;§AO*'vA'.'5::   

AND

THE HON'BLE MRJUST|CE._SU;BF{AéH,EAAD34'   é  7

CFBMINAL APPE'_I\__£. NO;;;_esx2oo2T»""%A  

BETW EEN:

% State by Manchenahally P'O_|4i Oe_   '.:;..._E\.e.éPELLAN''IA' "

(By Sri. SB. Pavin, SPP)

AND:    

1. K. Rajashekararee*dy,°£fA.  =
3/0. Sri.  Cheywireddy, " "
Aged:29.y'e_ars,1"§V '  _
Driver er AI3k:*593T,  ..  
Ch'i-nnastreet,     
Mulivendal,   .. 

Tq & Diet. Cucic£_ape_h,"A'.P;

 '~   }*Lin.gTud.u @ f5em--e-!-!«ngDdu,

_ ' SlOSri_.A$watha,
" ~ ~AgedA4 0~ years,
 BGyE1'!akU.[W.fl',

. "'%Nand'yaj_!a.ATq.,
 A.l?'. 'State.

"3, \./eenikatesh @ Muddu,

.. ' Venkatesh @ Byrabbulu,
 _,-'S/O Sri. Nejanna,

Aged: 45 years,
Maddikere,

Pathikonda Taluk;
Cuddapah Dist, A.P. State

Val",  



S/0 Sri. Akula Khasim,
Aged: 32 years,

Driver of Jeep,

TSR 1300 rh,

15' Gangireddy Street,
Pulivendala,
Cuddapah Dist,

A.P.

5. Vijaya @ Ankalagadu,

S/o Sri. Chinnararnudu

@ Yerrappa,

Aged: 24 years,

Pulivendala,

Cuddapah,  A _  ._  
A.P. State.   --."g';--..F5i-ESPONDVENIS

(By Sri. S. Vishweshwaraiah;      _
Sri. R. Nataraj, Adv. for R.3H&_R..5)   
(NBW issued to  4) g "

This Grim;-na.| Appeéai-its 'fiied under Section 378(1) & (3)
Cr.P.C.,'p.r.aying.Vto greint ie_ave'to" -.'i!.e_an.fiappea| against the judgment
dated: I-8.9.20i}1.tV7._pas£sjed_ iayu" the _PrI. Sessions Judge, Kolar in
S.C.Nos;__178r'92V and"v-107/Qfigaequitting the Respondents -- Accused

13,11 and 18 in S.C;i!\’ieV.1’78_I’324 and Accused 2 in S.C.No.107/95 for
the offences.uruder’Sec’tions”3.24, 326, 332, 353 and 395 of IPC and
Section 25 ofthe ‘Arr3fis Act.

Appeai on for orders this day, SREEDHAR RAO

it .deIivered thefoliowing:

. V _ V _ .~!_i_J_.|_3__§_£1\|.._I
3′ .__44’ViThe.r’he.teria£ facts of the prosecution case disctose that,

15.iOfl~989, A-3 to A-16, ail of them around 13 pm. make a

trespass in the residence of PW–1. CW-4 and PW-15 are

_,the daughters of PW–i. CW-1 is the uhcie of PW–i, who are ail

it residing together. The accused persons after the house

6%/

trespass, assault CW~1 and CW–4 and they were thrown on the
platform of the house outside. The accused by then had
committed series of dacoity in about three houses ofjthe”~«same

locality.

2. One lVi.Chandraiah,

Manchenahally PS. receives informa’t«iVort~._a’bout”the-~ i,ncide’r1tS’i’in

the village. He comes to the byhVmotor..gcjycl’evV’aiong with

PW~13 around 12 midrflght. about’=four persons
standing on the main road of makes enquiry
and finds them in 2 tries to take
out the revcilvei-.;’*~.j’T’hVe who are at a distance,
some revolver from him,
thereafter, the avvay.

V3: iT~he’acc’;.ise-d persons are all arrested. No recoveries

“*«..arev-ieffectedvi.”from”‘ti’ie'”accused. Test identification parade is

i5i:i.f}’i1..and 15 have identified A-1, A-2, A-9 and A~t1.

are charged for committing offences U/Ss. 324,

332,g”353, 395 rec and Sec. 25 of the Arms Act.

if The prosecution had adduced evidence of test

_,vi_dentification parade against the accused. The trial court found

if that evidence _with regard to T.l. parade is not credible. Hence,

0l/

accused are acquitted. The State is in appeal in respect of
acquittal of A1, A2, A9, A11 and A16.

5. It is the contention of the State in the appjealf”th’at_’in

the test identification parade, the above accused

identified by PW1, PW12, PW13 and~:F’\i’Vi5.

clirichingly established the guilt of iheiaeeiised.iTiie» ieviideiieeiei

PW1 and PW15 would disclose ‘th:a*t..,the accuse,d_’*ha’d’co’rnrnitted’ A

house trespass, assaulted them’ initerition to cause
robbery and dacoity. ‘that the order of
acquittal is badfinigw. if if

6. ‘and 5 are served and
represented Respo’ndent Nos.–2 and 4 are yet to
be secured of NBW.

_7, i4C’J’nV_:’tliO.f(3Ug.i’.1 consideration of the evidence of PW~4

‘-.-_- ‘Tahsildar regardiirigtest identification parade, we find that the

for conducting of test identification parade is

not c,ornp.!~ied’ followed. In the said test identification parade,

is crypt,i.ca||y said that three accused have been identified. The

A rreqtiirement of conduct of separate parade for each of the

..ac§cused in the group of persons with similar features is not

it followed. The proceedings of the test identification parade

1/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information