IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated the 18"' day of March 2008
:BEF'ORE:
uymuummmmmmgeaa)
1. Mariyamma, . '
W/013%: ' .,
Chu1:{x.hfim9da','.= ' V =
2%')
%%%% hes/hoeelateezccmpsgowda,
V Age:h5Q .
3. Ratlmamma,
'i'€.fe.Basa* ~ve~5ef:.':'%
. . Respondents
” ( for M] s P.Nataraju Agata,
Advocate. )
Z A; Criminal Appeal filed under Section 377 ofthc C.’.r.P.C.
3 to enhance the sentence and fine ‘by the
JMFC ‘ i”.araiir1′). Mysere. in C.C.I’u’e. “”9,’1’:.%9’£-‘ dated
mvielzing teneing the respondents-
accused for the ozlfenccs mtioned in the judgment.
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court
delivered the following : 9
.IUD(1 mm’;
‘J III-II’
This appeal by the State -is K oi.’
sentence passed by the J
s,… ..__t_ fa- t__e Sections
41, 3-24 and sec 1;:-*.s.sst
Lhflnafi
£0
‘-9
i’?
I
I
:5
‘.4-.\.._~’I_g__ 4 1_.t___.._.’I.t’ .|.1_..4.
K11 um;
imideni us we
flowers and guava
or his house led to the accused
with the complainant and
I ..
anal-nun-.-.-. -an -. –.1 __._-1..
‘mu’-= Qfid the oomfllniqant thn- if was 3
. 7″ ‘ V
the flowers and the guava fruits and,
V”.*–.d11Ivv.’17*’v”lV”‘gj\_ incident in question that took Place on
at about 5.45 p.m. near the house of the
‘ ..ootnplaiJ1ant, it is alleged that A-2 assaulted the
‘ccmplalnar-* A” * hack “flint! 51 cm. and
J’: ‘III ‘Jill I-lI’4\dl.
Q I o -v :————ww-
‘-“~’-ua
the complainant with a stone on the ‘nip A-1
restrained the complainant and tom his clothes.
&/
‘ f
3. The complaint lodged to the above efi’ect as per
11
as P-2
E
..y P.w.2 Che1Lvs.I.:I..m..a M to the _
L. r. _:;..2.’l
registered against the accused persons fie? the
offences. On completion of__the_
sheet was filed and, upon a lljxgglejrrpgggdpjpngldets V
guilty, the prosecution’ 9 .. A ‘ =
9.1%.; M 7 -and l?~1..tc’ re mar
denied the ice evidence.
4. record, the couri:
fouLnd_v had established its ease
P.W.2 complainant, supported
V and, as the evidence on the whole
‘ ‘I”‘b”‘1’i.a,1u§.uau LU
** “””‘*-‘ t” R acmptable fwcwing P.We.2, 3, 5 and 7
each other, and the medical evidence of
supporting their evidence, the trial court
he : convlcted the accused persons for the otfences first
V ‘above mentioned.
5. The learned trial judge sentenced A-1 to pay a fine
I Rs,500,l- in default to undergo simple
2:,
4),’.
«Es
imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable
under Section 341 of the I.P.C. and, A-.-2 were
sentAe’.’?.’e.-I’… m tsndage six memhs %ph §’i’.’…’I”f-‘pg
and to pay a fine of R3501′)/’ anti’def_a1iit
of 15 days was also it
under Section 324 of”V__V’e_pI.IV”.’G.’i Ah-‘}.’–:V:is
concerned, he was simple
iznpriwmnent niut.e..s- _ IJIJ ,…._, a …… ..
RS500 simple
fur’ of the offence under
–,It.»;1§s this sentence pagged by
in question by the State as
‘ punishment prescribed for the respectlv’ e
A. , offences proved against the respondents-accused
it persons, in my view, the sentence passed cannot be
t.err..I1er_ias1 Jeasenabieereanitbesaidthatitisaflea
bite sentence. E-‘SW. 1 1 uue ii”-‘”r and E” Ems de’pesm”‘
in his evidence that the injuries found on injured P.W.
iw
_z
(fin
the form of abrasions and pain in stoma:-i1’s}i_’2fi”€i’in”e
was also no fracture caused to P.W.3. like
nature of the case and the lease’ 1:
quanel between the parties, line ll
trial ceurt “ppears te m
been struck in reeimet of for jnsfiee
and at the same the ‘accused fur
acqllittajy s11:<A__lh,g "sentence passed in
:m4m¢leKennf&"e¢Cqmmus wmzummm flm
I
I'
3
I”
3
3
2
3.
is
5%
:.
>
1
1
:1:
3
a
3
33
greund. the sentence ‘because, the
eiainnot be said to be a flea bite
_ rd to the overt acts alleged again’ at
37.. the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-1
°k°/ ‘ Judge”