State Of Karnataka By Cn Halli … vs Rangaswamy S/O Ranga Naika on 22 January, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAEAKA AT BANGALOR$"* *  " 

DATED THIS THE 22"" any OF &ANUARY, 2o99 u_v§f-"

BEFORE:

fmaamvmfima ammm3As.fiwmmMmfi V=nK

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.159§*g§.g003"* : 

BETWEEN:

State of Karnatakag «_ :_ ';.'V g_ -3.'
By C.N.Halli po1ice;, on '=foree #1551'
Hearing, this day the Court_ .¢elivered the

following:

ivRD&§_f{;

The State éines :tpfetetteee!ithie  appeal
challenging tee aeeeittei at tee teefiendents for
the charge g§fie:i§§g§iene]fi4$; §§i and 427 I/W.
149 IPC '€on_: e {ettiellT"held by the JMFC.,

ChikkanayakanahalliaV*t'H

2. 5,$he fa¢ts,;elevant for the purpese of

tfiis.eppeaLvarere3_under:

T;$Hivalin§3iah {p.w.1} is the resident of

_t;:n:gaianahaiii village, situated within

5i€fii%keneyakanayalii Taluk limits. The

itfreietienehip between the complainant {P.W.1] and

.ue»._theiweccused were strained and the complainant

.iqi"etates in his cemplaint [Ex.Plj that on

26.01.1996, the cattie shed was destroyed and in

the offence p/u/Ss. 143, 447 add :fi2?' r¢w;_":§9*.f*"

04



llthe bere--we1l_efid after removing the clamps, they
"e:ea@eged the electric motor and filled the bore~
:hlwelll'wlth stones and xnud. They cut the cable
' Twlre of the said §ump--set and damaged the fence

ll'.ahd the stone pillers, thereby causing log to an

this regard a complaint came to be lodged and thegr,
criminal case is gending in the Court ta§[f;t.
Chikkanayakanayalli. The complainaht alsewalle§ee.A
that it is on 93.93.1997, at 
accused due to the existinggehmityr came fig thel
land bearing Sy. No.86 and took oflt the eyte
starter and threw it outsldeg thee they weht hear

the bore~well in the seld 1355 ate eeeaged the
bore~well by peltlng grefiee: ehéhtgeshlhg stones
inside the boreeeellfi they cut the cable wire and
damaged the stone tellers ahd thereafter entered

into the land bé$r;§g,S§;°N¢§89x1 and destroyed

the tender eocehuteahlnolthe trees. They also

cemmittefi nan act~ of trespass in Sy. No.9 and
oamegedx the _§ump~set, the door and also the

starter; eute sfiitch. Thereafter, they went near

DC

 



extent of Rs.1 lakh. The complainant claims that W *

at the time of the incident, himself and hie sohdfl

?.W.3 were in the land, watching the~incidehtiand-]

that the accused caused threat of daefier tOitheirfi"diA

life and pelted the stonee pend "thereby ithe'
complainant and his son being ecated by 'the bet
of the accused ran towardefltheit'hoeee;*_

On the next dey, the comeiainahttepproached
the A.S.I. ':<35:,_§;'s<.a_;1--&;;}§a:2thete was so much of apprehension of

» danger to their lives, it is unnatural that they

4Wcculd be Very near to the accused, so that they

hicould identify the accused or the real culprits.

~A



10

explained. It is surprising to note that onwtneitfi

date of the incident, P.Ws.1 and 3 gone ta tnei

land for the purpose of watching anticipating t§e"t

possibility of the accused committing the ect.o§¢i

trespass and causing destruction of the propert§I'

The reasons assigned by P.Ws{i and 3 of keeping

watch at 11.00 p.m. appease to Be unnatural.

9. Furtnetg mote, ~in¢§§sT tee incident
occurred an: acedto ll;G§ii¥nn;r fine' ccmpiaint in
this regard came to be filed cf §iW.l on the next
day at 5.dCi§tm}.ii§¢_aist§gsé between the Police

Station and tne place of the incident is about 13

_kms, ,gé.t§ why tee complainant did not approach

tee Eoiice immediately after the incident is not

:ig_ explained, ifhocdh P.W.l states in his evidence

l_ that tney*ewefe scared. of the accused, but at

_ least aftef the sunrise they could have gone to

KY: the ePciice Station and filed the complaint

immediately. There is 53 delay of more than 12

iVLihours in lodging the complaint. It may be

C 0 L44 £~«»""t€2-cg F
possible that same other persons ass the offence
K



13

ORDER

Ksrrfi’ _. ,