IN THE men Comm' 0? KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED Tms THE 25% DAY 09' MAY 2003
f'RESEN'i' 3 % V
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.sREEDHAi?:_f;2A.(:§:'V: «
AND é " 4'
THE HON'BLE MR. Jugrlca L.fiAR;§YANA"SWAl\§;r': : '«.T '~:
CRL.A. No. é2§§"oF2b'c2 % V j
BETWEEN: % . V L_ _ .'
S'I'A'FE BY RAJAJzNAG--:{g.
BANGALORE -- V : ~ ' " A
(BY SR1 ANAND K; is:.Ag.\_(AL(3e:MA'E?§¢I, HCGP3
AND: 1111 "
1 NATARA«JA~ '
s/0 RAMAswAM¥,.4s..yEARs
No.8, 4%: Bi..OC.K' "
RAJAJINA€}AR=J' '
B.}E3NGALORE"'---V.' _
' ' =SfiA1§'i5KrL4ki\fiMA
Vwj {} V.ELALEI§irIAN
. 1'2{¥;51"E~i"CROSS
2ND STAGE
IBFDIIEANAGAR
BANGALORE
RESPONDENTS
..(3Y skis. PATIL AND ASSOCIATES FOR R1)
B.S.MANIAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
” THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 373(1) &» (3) CR.P.C. BY THE
3?? ma THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HUMBLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASE!) T0 GRANT LEAVE TO FiLE AN APPEAL AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT mt 24,1o.2o00 PASSED BY THE xxv ADDL.
0.0. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE iN s.c.m.1-as/93,
AcQU:’mNG THE RES?ONli)EN’1’~ ACCUSED FOR ‘THE QFEENCE
PUMSHABLE U/S. 498–A AND 304-13 R/W SEC. 34’.;’mj–.dAND
SECS. 3 az. 4 OF THE D.P. ACT. 4 –« ‘~ .;.
This appeal is coming on for hearing this d§.v*–,–» ..
RAO, d., delivered the following:–
Junemszézi ‘
The case of the pro-.==.<:c11t:ioV1d1–.i:§§*j "tilat A611: is L»
married to Al on 14.2.1933 PW1d.–{fidd$her)A.afid" ?W2VA.{:9.istcfi and
PW3 (father) of the deccaséd; Rs.5,000/– and
other gold jeweflcfigs' dffifijr; of A1 and A3 is
the sister ofA1§' 'V
2. Vii’; persons subjected the
deceased and were demanding that
PW3 shouid L _4 ‘site in favour of the accused in
vpo;1siders§j:if§n* of The deceased sustained burn
_911_:: The dccaascd was admitted to hospital.
_ statement of the deceased at Ex.P.5. The
crmtentd” of “t}:ic”éfimp1aint disclose that the deceased tumbled on
__<:y1i:ider and sustained accidental burn injuries. On the
j;',;4;_e§is.VV"of Ex.P.5, a UDR case is registered. The deceased
'T dsmgmbca to the injuries on 17.5.1939.
3. FW3, later on, gave eoxnpiaint as per Ex.P.1 alleging that
the deceased is done to death by the accused or that heVsttépects
that the deceased had committed suicide on of
harassment or cruelty. The Investigation Oficer
letters written by the deceased. The
deceased and the disputed the tfivefevsent
handwriting expert. PW9 is the nanggmng
the handwriting expert, in the
disputed letters and in are by one and
the same failed to produce
either the tdh%1;cae o:ect letters alleged to have
been W1itten’h§f during trial. PW1 to
PW3 have case.
4. The that the oral evidence of PW1 to
is «eufiers from infirmitics. The tn’a1 Court has ~
acquitted’ mg The State is in appeal.
to note that the prosecution has primarily
the contents of Ex.P.5 which exeulpates the
the charge U/s. 304-8. The letters alleged to have
It by the deceased have not been produced before the
‘ T Copy of the letters are also not produced. In that view, the
6%
Court has absolutely no benefit of going thmugh the nattgre 0 1′
the allegations made in the letters in order to appreciate. th¢t’case
of cruelty made out by the prosecution. The iv
PW3 remains on record with regard togegilggatimis’ T35». §
trial court has found that the evidence or Pm 31x; mm M
discrepancies and infirmitics. Ittislp bctfiotcci
when the statement of the it was
found to be a case of 1 latct tm has filed
vague compiaint malging the alternative
suicide on aocoztjgitt case made out by
PW3 in the t’a’t’t:.§rV”t11ot1ght. The trial Court
has granted acquittal. We do
not find maéonstti)’ with the order of acquittal. The
appeal ig » _
Sdf-é
Iudgg
Sd/-”
Judge