State By Thalaghattapura Police vs Hemanna S/O Dodda Guddaiah on 6 September, 2010

This appcaa is by the State chalicnging .

acquittal dated 9.7.03 passed by thsfifast ‘I?r”a’c1s..:”{!§é:ssi.*;ns=.’)’4 ” Vs

Bangalore Rural Disuici,

acquitting the respondent of the ofié.-34:53 2

IPC. V’ V

2. ciifirgc sheet

he had _ilIicit intimacy

with lwifé ,.’Mumra’ ju and therefore, the

cieceastd ‘W35 such illicit intimacy of the

‘~ said Woman and therefore, on

‘ 6.45 8.111., at Gavianapalya village, the

faspbnsiésit committed the murder of the decea sad by

L px’ea$si11;”g. into the water pond meant for mug’ ‘ ating the

.. lands, vtfshereby he is alleged to have ccmmittmi an ofibncc

ssss~ Sec.3()2 IPC.

3. In order to prove the case against the respondent,
the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and got

marked Ex.P’–1 to F’-8. The defence of the Icspondent

being true of total cieniai, he has examined DW-1 to .L”i”\”.¥-4

and got marked EXJI)-1 and B-2 in his defence.

4. After hearm g the pmsccution and the ‘

iearned Seseions Judge was plrriaiéede.

respondent of the offence aileged «.

hasoomeupinthisappea1.V L» b . j’

5. Heani Sri G Sri
Shankarappa, for the ‘ V’

6. PW~ 1% _R the deceased
Rudrappa. his father hes
died. Tip naturc’s call on that
day at xwlien he was in the course of
eon PW-4 was supplying the

water; ‘ ‘tae_theiar ‘ehe ‘nearby place. P.W.4 heard some

Tutbe side the pond, thezeby when he rushed

the respondent pxessing the deceasw

info-.._theV__vWe£¢r;T Thercafier, PW-4 had come and informed

1 iegéixding the committing of the murder of the

by the accused. He has further stated that his

‘ hyvgrifc has iflicit iratixnacy with the accused and themfore,

the deceased was objecting to the accused coming to his

house. The said iliicit relationship continued fear about

4 to 5 years and in this connection, them was some

panchayath and panchayathdars had

respondent not to continue: such relationshgifi.’ ‘ _

this advice by the panchayathdars, .’gva§’

confinuing his illegal activity. fliisj.

deceased had wagmed thg:

Stated that after the incident’ has Hfnolice
station and filed Ari-i:'(a)VV is his

7. pwug signatoxy to the
inquest Ex.’ another son of the
dcceaécd regarding illegal intimacy
of his accused. He has aiso furlshcr

that after hearing regarding the death

of the water pond, he went near the place

father was dead. Thereafter, after comm’ g

to ‘ai:;bi1t the incident, they have gone to thc police

given complaint. PW–4 Sanjcevaraju is the

eye: witness in this case. it is his case that on

at about 6.45 a.m., he had gone to irxigatc the

land and his grand father the deceased was sitting for

answcxing naturc’s cail near the water pond. He has

a..

further stated that the respondent came near his

father and pushed his grand father into the water

being afraid, he ran away and informed the-em: ‘

father and maternal uncle. T}:1ercaft:’:r;P’S'{- the K V’

scene of occnrnence, they saw

has also stated about the i11tiir:9.a_e3r_ ,.ga.ethei L’

with the accused and to
such. relationship of V accused. This
PW-4 has been’ by the defence
and it is school during
the incident .

is” ttaughter in law of the
decease€1¥…LS§1e Iiae ;é;§gt§dt:iw’1ega;dmg the death of her father-

Qn t1ie»…13’tc”of”‘::fl’:§nce. However, she is not the eye

fie ~.tj;1e Vitteitlent. P’W–6 Krishnappa is the

: “E§i.P-3 which is the mahazer for seizing the

e1othee~e’€ deceased.

H PW–7 Ramalingaiah is a witness to EXP-3

‘Wig-rcunder the clothes of the deceased were seized by the

U ___5Poliee. PW-8 Hanaumaiah is a relative of the deceased who

has stated that PW-1 told that the accused was loving his

daughter.

‘-

//7′

10. PW~9 is Dr.K H Manjunath who has conducted

post mortem examinairion on the dead body of the

He has stated that the death is due to asphyxia jéis _

of drowning. PW~1O Hannmaiah is another: ‘

Fwd. He has stated regarding the

deceased with the mother 91’ P’~W~1

daughter~in–}aw of the deceaseVt1»..:VV:.”sta’tes
was keeping watch abe”»a,@ vresivaaondent.
accused and HIV-5. of Police who
has registemgi No.86/O0
for oflence ” ” ‘*~. 1: Thalagattapura Police
Stafioxr. “”” investigation in this
case raas eiszatement ef witnesses and also

subjected €te.:;id V body Véfer post mortem examination,’

A.inq1’1e$”i “” “and also handed over further

‘the Inspector of Police.

Gfinanda is Police Inspector who has

eomfaiereel. ivnvestigatio;-:1 and has filed charge sheet in this

V% ~ PW-14 s Rudrappa, is Circle Inspector of Police

— has conducted part of investigation in this case,

a sted the accused and produced him before the

Magistrate and recorded the statement of witnesses.

-r

//’r

12. The respondent-accused had exaznined DW-1
Narayaua who is a relative of respondent, DW-2 _..__is a

friend of the respondent, DW-3 Hexnazma

himseli} and DW-4 Br.Mt1ms’wamappa. It A-

by the respondent to Show that_ .h.e’_was_”ii”et” K’

the scene of occurrence by exam1n’ ix; g I .:

also examm’ ed mm’ self as DW}3.__ Hex bee L’

aw-4 to Show that he 4 :_ ‘by Dr.
Muniswamappa on 22V.:’S,z(:){)_ Ex.D-2 being
the chit for having examined Atfie

is-3 of about 8 hours
in “is. alleged to have taken place

at about the complaint is alleged to

3:1a\ze§gl’v::eex1 p.m., The distance between the

and the scene of offence is about 5 kms.

in such cases is fatal to the case of the

The leamed Sessions Judge has found fault

me; such delay in lodging the complaint before the police.

izseeen that PW-4 being an eye Witness, the conduct of

% has been doubted by the learned Sessions Judge in

the sense that if he heard the noise of the deceased while

he was irrigaizing the land, nothing prevented him from

g…

bringing it to the notice of other neighbouring

working in the field and also by summoning

relative to the scene of offence by shouting. K

hand though being the gand son of the stsées x

that under fear he ran towaxtis

father and other members of ‘ht. .. of ” L»

PW–4 being the grandson of the found
fault with by the J§;eg.§{;A:::,:s further seen
that PW–1 w1}o_is.son e son of the
deceased, Vt court that there
was a ;,:_ in this regard, but
none the who held panchayath were
and on these three major

points; the leaned’ Sessions Judge, has disbelieved the

‘version and has passed the order of acquittal.

through the material on record, we

are’~._of the ofxinion that the reasons given by the leaxned

‘. Sessions” Judge is neither capricious nor without any

evidence on record, but it is in accordance with the

VA V. evidence adduced by the prosecution. Under the

circumstances, the well considered order of the acquittal

passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not warrant

7|

//7

mmfimmmm:mummm;mmmwtmmHomflHhnfi@ _

appeal is devoid of merits and it is liable to be

Ammfimmflmmmmfifimmmfl

V % U
mMm §JTufig3