High Court Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Gurumallappa on 30 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Gurumallappa on 30 July, 2008
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Gowda
IN THE HIGH ceum' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the sow day 9:' JULY, 2003 
PRESENT "*

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE K.   .

AND

THE HONELE MRJUSTICE B.  _' 

CZRIIVHNAL APPEAL Nd'.'.19€>§é/2(§fj;?!  . «. '
 "    
CRIMINAL APPEAL__}§Q,_ 19553/.2902. _ E

Between:

State of  
Mahila Police.    . . "

.. Appellant

' -' Conxmon in both appeals.

(By SIti.G.BhaVaI)i  for appellant - State.)

And:

 %%¢mumnappa,«&,%

S-1 '0.» Easap b ' 

' W  2-;at;D;;:or No.Lim?36/1s(A),
.;- "£3 Croés,  
_ "--« . »_ . _S&_1vajaI1ika;. Hostel Road,
., .. . ,Vi§13:aVr§-1ny}ap1H*a1x:,

'V " .._M«ysQreL*_.

. . . Raspondent

in Crl.A.Nc}.1962/2002.

  __ (By Sri. A.K.Joshi, Adv. for respondent. )

QF

‘% KSREED

Shivaprakash, 4
S / 0. Basappadcvaru,
3 1 yrs.,

Gowramma,
W/0. Basappadevaru,
58 yrs.,

Basappadcvaru,
S 1’ <3. Nanjaiah,
69 yrs.,

all are R/at. D0-or No.
1036/ 18(A),
{I Cross,

Sarvajanjka Hostel; fx:-ad, V.

Vidyaranyapuram, *
Mysore.

b-3

Rcspendcnts
in Gr1.A.No. 1963/2002.

(By Adv. for respondents.)

Tf1’esc Criminal Appeals (taming on for
HAR RAO. J, delivered the following:

_ V’ cfiminal apwals are filed 11.5. 378(1) and (3)
C5r’.P. Tb§<.»_t}3e» ASPP fer the State praying that this H01:1'bie
C(iL1r%t;'.3_3;a'*'y bx: pigaased to grant leave to file an appeai against
V the j11dVgi31t2Iit ?C_1'L.' 28-8-2002 passed by the Prl. S.J., Mysore,
E51 SC' N€;!.249}'2{}00 and SC N0. 129/ 2000 acquitting the

— -. rt:-gponcicmts — accused fer the eifencx: punishable under Secs.

< ?49 8~A.:,,302"'r.w. 34 IPC and 11.5. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

hearing this

8

room was wet with kerosene. When deceased went izzgidwc, A3

iit match stick and threw an the: fioer, flames the

deceased. Some persons came. and shrouded V a 4_

mg and later on, she is taken to has;-ital’. ; n

deciamtians the: deceased states A4
prcsent in the houm: and for hét
death. However, the dyfitxg dt)té$”‘ ziéit precisely
state as to the nature % A2 and A4 in
causing the mcmly state
presence of state about the
OV{f”:I’1Z act:,;VV(‘§f ctmsideration of the

cvidencfi’ 1.i’g_ 55 that the dying declarations

categoxficafly A3 as the culprit. The main

A3, A2′ A4 cannot be cansidcred as active:

of common intention with A3 at the

givcIi”‘poiI:t’of7~tiinc. Whatsocver, their animus is against the

” “5-::ariicr to the: incident In the absence of specific
to prove their participafion. or sharing of 00111111011
‘:’_4:i11tt:;:”1tion, it cannot be said that Al, A2 and A4 are guilty of

bffencc under Sec. 302 IPC.

cg’/.

10

8. Far the reasons and diszzussions made abofée, “A3 is

convictad for cffence under Sec. 302 IPC

life. A: to A-4 are convicted fcnzr ofiergcp _1fmé§;’r’ rififi .

with Sec. 34 1:90 ané sentenced ta 3. ::’.’_(3r. :3 51*

and to pay fine of Rs.1(},0{}O/

for a period of 3 montlm. ‘The €1″1t;ifgic<§ to Iwnc-:-fit
of set off under Sec. 428 is partly aléowed

% Sd/-

 ''''      Judge

Sd/-~
Judge

 ME-*1/'4~7_   n