(av Amcvs cvnmm
71:33 ::r:;2.p.c. %%?Rm:a T0 GRAN’? LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL
_ ‘ “A7<igAzNs'*:j THEQFUDGMEN? m'.3.12.20o2 PASSED BY THE ADDL.
‘1s:.a_(:+;4\sr:4 TRACK coum, CI~II’I’RA£}UR{3A, m S.C.NO.54/2000 –
* .”A§3QUI’I’;F{I§iG THE RESPPNDENT/ACCUSED 9012 THE OFFENCES
?;’Q’,’S,,é§8{A) AND 305 OF :90.
«~ ‘r:–11s CRMNAL APPEAL COMING on FOR HEARING, THIS
pm, THE mum; DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
{N THE ‘men coum’ OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALIQRE ‘
DATED TFIIS THE 30111 DAY 0F JANUARY »«
BEFORE V V ‘ V x V’
THE HONBLE MR.JUS”.I’ICE ;é;.’S’S’w!?AcHHAP1}_Rfi, ‘A
CRINHNAL APPEAL NO.70Vv1l’;’2G£);3_) “
BETWEEN: V " V STATE BY RMLWAY . ' POLICE STATIGN, DAVANGERE. _ APPELLANT
(37 ERLSATISH R.é$Ji1;’;;;cép; Q
ZAHOOR BAIG, .
S/O.SR’i.JABBAR Bale-A,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, A % ,
LABOURER 12¢’ JAYALAKSHMI mm,
03?.’ To PF§£1£3HA’§’ ‘PALI{IE’S,. ,_ ….. <4 .
cmTRAD;J1er.3A.:»-.'L: mas:-onrsxm
'I'é1'1s.~*.,'_"<':2211\«¢_:.1~'a};":.V, APPEAL IS FILED UNDER sections 373(1) 85
conteneé of the complaint (Ex.P.1), the evidence of the
4jf'éithefLf the mother (PW4), the brother (PW.5) and the
gouge (PW.6) of the deceased reveal that the mused
the deceased to cruelty and harassment and that the
4
3. During the trial, the pzwution examined PWs.1
14 and in their evidence got marked the documenm Exs.P.–<1':'£e"L:«».V:
R6 and M031 to 4. The statement of the
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 3-:¢_.
of total denial and has not kd any defefiee'
Court, on appmeiation of the the
accused of the change under IPC and
aggrieved by the fang this appeal.
4. I have Pleader and
also the’ g; that arises for my
considerafionyvifiy ” ‘_ V H . .’
“iflhefnef and order of
ef the ieependent for the change under
., ,4§w_tio£1s%–:~493:5 {PC is ilktgal and
5. ‘ of the learned Government Pleader
vA’e1-;lv”‘iv1ough he states that he had seen the
_ v_Vj”11a1’a3$me1:);£. 1;1e not say anything with regard to the threat
cause the death of the deceased by pouring
531$ setting fire. The scrutiny of the evidence of PW/1
/egg reveals that both the deceased and the accused
quarrclling and in this rcgani, a panchayath was held.
6
deceased was afler seven years of the marriage.
there is a duty cast upon the prosecution to establie-}.1.’1:.Ic”‘;a::VV
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. _V
that out of the marriage, the
three sons and it is in the complainf the
person of bad conduct and for
playing matka and thmehy, was not
getting the faod in the alt that
on an occasion of committing
the murder of and sefiing
the E112. The PW. 1, the father of the
deceased reveals be quarrels between the
the accused Wm not
pmVV.ii:1i3&z t’a.e1 used to confine her in the mom and was
ameae postmortem report Ex.P.6. PWs.12
14 oificers, who registered the eztime and
‘*}:’eivd_–_ 1″-»_he invesfigafion by recording the statement of the
to above. Therefore, on reappxeeiation of the
record, I am of the opinion that there is insuficient
to hold the accused guilty for the offence under
%c£:ioa1s 498-A and 306 rec. 54
9
years of the marriage. in that View of the matter, I do not think
that the pmsecution was able to establish the Z
haraesment by the accused on the ‘ _
to drive the deceased to commit suicide.’
11. The prosecution
witness for the inquest jeimess for
the spot Inahazar ex.P_.3,_ man ami
Passenger Guard speak having
seen the dead eaiiway track and
PW. 10 is a wiigese, marriage of the tie-ceased
and the aecusecbib. 1 Constable, who had kept
the Watch o1g’th_e of deceased, Whezeas PWK13 is
held the on the dead body of the
13
12. This is an appeal against an oxtier of ”
the appellate Court. will be very slaow in intcxfcting Z
orders and even. if the second View po$si’fiVlé,._ f.hev.._v1;:w_
accepted by the Trial Court cannqt he
considering the evidence led by
appmiation, in the context ofiihc p;i’i}:’i’g;’;’1L7}3′.:e;%fi1:aai’a<;1c1ox«a:":§;i§'Abj}?v'that
Apex Court, I am of the opinio1'1$ has
not made out any Hence,
I answer the pain}: to pass the
following:
«9R.DE;_?_ ‘
The appcai I*Es;”..i:osts. The fees of the Amicus
Cgxéag is Thousand only) and the
St%s t6_ Sd/…
V . _ .V ._ Iudge