High Court Karnataka High Court

State By Pandavapura Police vs B. Jayarama, on 20 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
State By Pandavapura Police vs B. Jayarama, on 20 October, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao B.V.Pinto

I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOERE’ ._

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF 0CT0BER’,:—-2QTifo’1’ej”‘ ~

PRESENT;

THE I-ION’BLE MR. JUsT1cE:’Tg.s:{!€§h:1$DHAR

A;?m
THE HONBLE MR. J_U:lS’I*I’CE_vB.\/l.’PI1SIflfQ_3

cRL.A;~H’o,1l745
.CRL.A:,-1’€0.’;l._748_”.Q15′ 20:35″

CIRL.A. N0. 1745 J

State by Pe_H.1.l§él1T;’:2V1–31_V1:1′-:1 Pa_li’Ce__. — l
._ V . Appellant
[By Sri G. Bhavaiii Sin’gh,”—-SPP}

” _S,»_’V”O’.l Bvasavegowda,
«Age€§’ab§)ut 30 years,

2.l Uvgregfiywda,
S/0. Basavegowda,
Aged 30 years,

A Naga,

S / 0. Basavegowda,
Aged 26 years,

All are R/0. Andanigowdana Koppalu Village,
Melukote I-Iobli,

/?

to hospital thereby they have committed an offence U/_f-L302

r/w Sec. 34- of IPC.

3. It is further charged that on the .

and pkace in furtherance of the common ir1ter1tior’1’oVf”a§i.Vt1*ae 3″‘

accused, Accused No.3 assau1tedV’»CW1’e-$3′

and CW2 — Shivanna with reaper piece’ and f’NoV.h1

assaulted Sampath Kumar and ‘chopper and
club respectiveiy with such _ir15ter:;_tiori*–V.or ‘knowledge or under

such act they would have
caused “the Sarripath Kumar and Shivanna
they would of murder, thereby they are
alleged to Vhavee ‘c£).Vr:1fIV.–¥.I1AiAt–‘.f_,cti.o.’J”oft”er1ce U/S.307 r/w Sec. 34 IPC.

»_The prosecution in order to prove the case has

Witnesses and has got marked EX.P.1 to

proditlced M.O.1 to 12. The defence of the accused

“._>>W&S olreof total denial and they have examined DW1 to DW3

A defence witnesses and got marked EXs.D1 to D11 and

E;xcs.C1 to C3 from the statement of DW3.

5

5. After hearing the prosecution and the”jde:.fen:ce’,

the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to coral/1’ctv ”

No.1 for the offence U/s.304–II o£»~I1.>.cA a:;E1′”Vee*1£tel{eeda, to.’ All

undergo imprisonment for the peI’iod alreadyZundergone’i.._e’;;.t

6 years and 6 months, while_v:’a.c_quitting to ” 0′

Accused No.4 for all the;__offences.alnd also acqui.tting§Accused
No.1 of the offence 34 of IPC.

The State has filed itorlder of acquittal
of the

6, ____ :__S_hi7:anna is .thecomp1ajnant cum injured

eyewitn”essl..He on the date of the incident

one Narasegowda andA~Ulgr–egowda who are Accused No. 1 and

vlfere——-carrying mangoes at about 7.00-8.00

that time the deceased Ugregowda asked

Accused l1\fci.’j_1l..eand 3 as to why they plucked mangoes from

his llplalntation. By hearing the tall: of the deceased

0′ :.:f’~ilgregoWda Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 ran into the

‘ Village and thereafter, Accused No.1 to Accused No.4 reached

said place. The Accused No.1 was holding chopper,

Accused No.2 who was holding reeper patti, Accused No.3

6

was unarmed and Naga was holding a club. It

evidence of PW1 that Accused No.1 assaulted ”

Ugregowda with chopper. The blow was-given’ it

of the deceased. Thereafter,

deceased with reeper patti. VZl\.c&:usedA’1°Jo.4V 2-3

blows vsn’th stick. When;__this occt.trred’?Wl was..onpgthe top of
the proposed shed, in and he got
down from the shed he was also
assaulted and Accused No.4
have beaten him a blow with a
choppej on ~h_e’tried to avoid the same, it had
the impactgon of his head. Accused No.2

gavefolows with reeper patti to his thighs. However, Accused

“assault him. Ugrewoda–Accused No.3 stopped

Athe-T’_other”persor1’s from reaching the said place. However,

Ugregowtia not beaten him. However, PW2 Samapath

pl.’Iiun1ar.–elder brother of PW1 was beaten by Accused No.2

Accused No.4» on his head. On account of the blows by

bleeding starting oozing out and thereafter they were

10

Accused No.2 is directed to deposit the fine

trial Court. The appeals are disposed of £11

indicated above. é

Gps*