” V” Lsikéhaiana
’39. ” A’
Driver, Nidoda
IN THE HIGH COURT 0}? KARNATAKA;~~ L’
CIRCUYI’ BENCH, GULBARGA M %
mzrmz Tms THE: 27m my 2-:§.”I(:-sx T
BEFORE % . é %
THE HONBLE MR.JUsT1c£é:v.. JAG1«yréA’r1i;§N”‘
CRL. APPEAL N9;La§a2″:g0c4
BETVVEEN:
State of _ 1:
By the Sub I:;s*;3eci;b;_ of :~ _ _
Police, Ku$11?r1ec;i”w1?bIicae.
.,;…APPELLANT
(By Sm:’Anmzrad1§a;%.%A$~§sa;{;{%&;g;¢;g1:;S.RP)
AND: . ‘ J
A S! 0 ~Fa1*¢p:pa=%
~D’river’;
AL14raciVB
Bidaf Dist.
, Heiglamantfla
‘ o}$Axj12z1a
35 Wars,
with the said Bayamma and were assaulting ~ V.
were aiso abusing her with vulgar words T’
accused being the very close re1a’§ives o£.vthe-I
used to abuse the deeeasedgajd g4ivee”*her ‘V
physical harassment and on the
once again harassed ‘else to bear
the menta} phye§_¢;;1§1A..VV gven, the
by pouring
kerosene later died in the
hospitaiér me’ went to the
hospital ‘flue incident and came to
V know’ .their”denghter had committed suicide unable
fiiarassment gven to her by the accused
77’«_.ff1ie’-“statement given by the deceased
V V’ _BayaCi:meV:wi1:iie she wee in the hospital was recorded by
exit? based on the said statement cum
jeoir;V1i)}a’iAint cum dying declaration, a case was regstered
T F.I.R was sent as per EX.P9 to the court. On
$7
completion of the investigation, the charge sheet
submitted against the accused pemens.
3. On pleading not guilty to the ‘e1′::–mfgej,’
perscns were pui; on trial and lieé
evidence by examining PWs
Ex.P1 to P10 were markeg aloiig aekeeosene
can. The accused which was
against them, to lead any
defence ” trial judge after
appreeie;tjng– __ on record, came to the
e0:nc1usioh”w–t§1at the had failed to prove the
_ case” tEie..V_,é§ecu$ed beyond all reasonabie doubt
acquitted them of all the offences and
the State to prefer this appeal.
V -4. hafe the learned Add}. S.P.P for the State
‘A counsel Srifiazlgappa Seuie for the
–..T.’.–ree;’i(5:iidents/ accused and perused the entire material
“<_€ifi reeerd. }z
5. Learned Add}. 3.13.? for the State
trial court was $33 error in acquitting the ‘
and though the prosecution ‘1 ”
declaration of the deceased which”is_”Spoke;i7-‘to V’
doctor examined as WV 18, being
supported by the ‘of the
deceased, the the
accused recorded is
agairzst the interference by
this ” leoooed counsel took me
through the’ and in particular to that
of the doctor WV– 18.
_ hand, leashed counsel for the
o’*A..V.v.Vrespo11:§onto that the tria} CO’£1I’¥i has considered
ovidenvoe-‘: iazfigvory angle and has found that the
witnesses have not supported the case of
h firosecution and the parents anti husband of ‘mo
.(i§:ceased have also depvoseé in their evidence that the
” deceased never informed anybociy about the physical
>,.
arid mental harassment given to her by the A4
mrsene. The dying deeiaxatien produeeatr bye ”
prosecution is also net free frem deiiht ae ‘efi:}};~fa
xerox. copy and the elector has adxiiittesrt fiieAtevidei§;eeAV”‘–.
that he signed it on the day””2;:e*~.gaxete
eeurt. Under the said the taken by
the trial court is a finm the
evicienee on Letiet3,A«:TItd~iIiterterenee by this
court in K
7. submission made, i
have exéi1t:xi13:,et§..ti1e evidence on record. Of the
– ._proee§:ution_winiee:3es,v the material witnesses are P’W-:5 5
6 the parents of the deceased and WV 8
the ht ‘ the deceased and WV 18 the doctor.
‘ 5 and 6 depose in their evidence about the
“:fu§,1:a sfsment given by the accused to the deceased, but
. the cross examination these witnesses have stated
V that deceased did not inform anyboéy in the village
abeut the accused having abused her and giving her ill-
3*:
treatment both ghysically and mentafly. The husband
of the deceased who was examined as
Maflikarjtma has also deposed in the _
evidence that the accused did not ,abuse_.—-
they did not give any
deceased. The rest of the prosec11ztionAwiVt11essiess
9, £1 and 12 do not aecused
persons with regard to abused by
them or being s11:£i_§ectefj””t{, The panch
Witnesses the
prosecution spot panchanamakwe
are now leftwith tI1e”e§i{1ei_;3.ee of the doctor examined as
_PW- 1.85′: in tlxiev-.c:o_urs:e of his evidence, the doctor has
*.$ta§eriVVL’tat.tfietflying declaration was recorded by the
pei’ Ex.P10, but in the cross examination,
the hes admitted that the Tahsildar was not
“s;1yV”i11struCtien by this doctor to record statement
certificate was issued by P°W- 18. Further, the
7.a:i.octor has stated in his cross exemieatiexz that for the
3/
, ¢
first time he is seeing the dying ~ 2
which is not the orignal and aiso admits; i
signed Ex.P10 oniy on that daty:V'(oii1i_’ti1e’*’da1;ss
evidence). In the light of the _aferes;aid evideiaee or» i
doctor, the trial court did it the
dying declaration t_ is
taken out of consideretioii, i only the
evidence of and her
husband. not stated about
the acegjeetl or abusing her in
the maiziiegj alle – iprésecufion.
the e’§;o’s:e.eiI’cumstances, the View taken by
‘cannot be termed as an unreasonabie
View V ef ‘j__e*i?idence on record or the finding as
‘«;_’Iiherefere, in my view, interference by this
“~:_aga3’I1st the order of aequittai does not arise
‘iiaifiiilg regard to the nature of evidence placed on
V Eecord. The View taken by the trial court appears to be
a possible View and therefere this court cannot interfere
%
with the said view taken. by the learned trial
tllis connection, it is also necessary to keep _
law laid down by the Apex etwo
imerference against the order ‘-of mes 11;:
Appellate C-011I°t3oII}. the 2 ”\j:’sAVwliSt_ate.V’3ef %
U31’ 2005 s.e.c (Cri) 1’33 th¢%sA15}ex1:as@o:§sewed
thus: A ‘4 V l’
” There is court
“e_viden{;e neon an order
of the order of
aeqxliitalsi”:al1::r19t”1fi§e’v«in’terfered with because
the <::_if"«i:i:_i1';ecence of the accused
stfefigtfiehed by acquittal. The
verluch runs through the web of
~ .Vad@;in;isfration of justice in criminal cases is
views are possible on the evidence
the case, one pointing to the
gujlt:. of the accused should be adepted. The
x 'T ~paremour1t consideration of the court is to
'ensure that miscarriage of justice is
prevented. A miscarriage of justice which
may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no
less than {rem the eenvietien of an innocent.
lv
/-
18
In a case where admissible evidence is
ignored, a duty is cast upfiri the a1313eI1??1.t..¢e’: “e ‘» ‘
ceurt ta reappreciate the evidence WhCF€; ‘(:I}fj A
accuseé has been acquitted, :TQ1’_'{}f}€ V’
of ascertaining as to whether
accused really committed _anyV4(zffe:1ee of .if1(§t; ‘ V ‘
(See Bhagwan Singh ef MP-..V}:
principle to be f9flowed_…_f3fy._ the
court considering the
judgment of only
when thegre ‘ i ” sfdtfistantjal
reasengs iizzzqf ” the impugned
ju<?igmeii:;Ve.7v_.vie73,e1ee;:1y unieasonable and
relevant a'£1dV materiajis have been
unjuefif1xai:%,1yVV"e1ii11_ii1e:1;ifed in the process, it is
eompelliflgreasen for iilterfererme." …….. ..
" of the aforesaid reasoning, I do not
this appeal and accordingly, it is
V _dismiesec';§ ' u
T .. Bvfz
Sd/~
Judge