-1- IN THE HIGH COURT op KARNATAKA AT §gNG§L0R: u." DATED THIS THE 22m'aay Q? S$§TEM§ER 29Qé, f pREs§NTA', ram HON'BLE MR1JusT:c$ 3 R BAQNUREATH THE HoN'5LE MRSgSUsf:¢E"B V EEGARRTHNA caifi:$AL7A?23An*fibfilszé/2007 BETWEEN€ux5fl'H sTATEaoF'KARNAmAKAr_" BY SRIRANGAPATNA-PGLICE REP BY STA?E puBL:cgpRosEcuToR .. "_ =~' = ... APPELLANT ..M,(Ey SR: s B pgvmu, SP?) '7,A§D--" 5AéAvARAJfi, 42 YEARS 'v.3/o LATE HANUMEGOWDA @ BETTAPBA 4 ' ;,RiAnsR:RANeA9ATNA.TOWN . . . RESPONDENT
” @BYsm:vsmnmww,Amn¢
I
-3-
was entrusted with the case and while thfi gees ~
was in his custody, the ,ea$e epapeze “ieund u
missing and later, as 7the””seidQgcoense1
expired, after getting the case paeers~bflilt*d
up again, the present appeal is filed._}
3. We arefi not: satisfied with the
explanation offered, ,Vid«
1;. _fn this regard; keeping in mind the
fact thet,fer the eegiigence of counsel, the
State shonldirnnf suffer, yna have considered
a”mer:t%heieQ. When we perused the impugned
“judgment and the evidence available, we notice
that ,thee’accusedr has been given benefit of
hi3 “deubt end acquitted by the learned trial Judge
‘Xfo: the offences under Sections 323, 326 and
d*—§06 IPC. According to the complainant ~E.W.2,
gw
-4-
the accused who is none else than his2brother’o
had assaulted him: on :}12Q2eG3 trin”,;the_#
afternoon near Darasagupge eiiiegeVeeer:soޤ
dispute regarding land. ifioticing the tact of
inconsistency andflofiontrsoiotory nstere of
evidence of p.w.2 in tee sense, though in the
complaint, sit eflsfi stereo wthat: the accused
asseultedi hiss eitfiw ears: gases, now it is
projecteo as it he fies sssaulting by a stone
and the said’ alleged to have ‘ been
recovered hy the ooiice. Furthermore, what is
imore damaging to the prosecution case is nonw
uefiaminationzoi the doctor who is alleged to
have! tresteo the complainant –P.W}2. The
“*a complainant, in his evidence, has stated that
‘= he had received grievous injuries due to the
E”o:essault and fell unconscious and immediately,
Lion attaining consciousness, he had lodged the
é§;J~/
-5-
complaint on the same «day, but_~thefl.teeordauv l
disclose that the complaifit eaellpfigéfitaftert
three days. Neticifig ” allitiitheeejl;
inconsistencies, the :ieleee’i’relationship
between the partiee aad the é%esible motive
for’ the complainant ihieeelfietef tile such a
case agaihet hie Srotherg the”ttial Court has
given benefit” eftlabehtl afia acquitted the
accusedaiirg¢§%a ¢E%}n§e an appeal against
acquittal} keeeihe jar mind tine well settled
prihciplea that: even if alternate View is
filpeeeifilejhenormally, the Court would be
interfere with the finding of
aequittaleh by the trial Court unless the
‘i”tifihdin§ of acquittal is totally illegal and
‘perverse. Even on merits, on perusal of the
i”uwifipugned judgment as well as the evidence, we
V do not find any illegality or perversity in
gel”
-5-
the appreciation of evidence by th§h”%fii$lcT
Court. As we do not see any merits”as:wéll”asw”‘
absence of sufficiency of 1caasec*fcr f?hég
inordinate delay cfif 612 dayc Exp aficficaching
the Court, in our view, fi§iS_i$ nct-§ fit case
to entertain the afipcalc _V __n _
5. Hence, the Lf’¥aQp1ication for
condonation,<n_cf 1 €dc1a§7cj_i$" rejected.
Conseqgenti§§qctfie "a@pealf fails and 'the same
stands fiejccted;cc"
Sd/…
Judge
Sd/-.
Tudge
‘ c_’bk§