IN THE HIGH coum' op KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30% DAY OF
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTECE ;HAIéjRAPEA;L:s:o;1%k9%# oj;2Co2_
BETWEEN: '4 'L " '
STATE OF KAR1@A'tA§:A APPELLANT
(BY SRIIS.BHAi?}'X?§!AVSiN{}H;' spa %
AND: % ._ % .. x
PRAB1;:Ai-:ARA.'?o.cJARY'
" - %%s/0.:G£11?1jv:3 POOJAR.¥'
AGE: 31 mans'
=,R;';O"'FHIMF'AY»I HOUSE
ATH.RAb*:..v1.LLAGE
UDUPI TALUK RESPONDENT
:03? é§g1§’N,.s;SAMPANGxRAMAIAH, ADVOCATE ON Arvxlcus
ecA>R:AE.)-,.% *
VA ” Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 3278(1) 8:.
‘ __”~'{3)§Cr.P.C. praying to gant leave to fie an appeal against
T the judgment dated 3.11.2001 passed by the Prl. Sessions
Q1/
Judge, D.K., Mangalore in S.C.N0.43/2000
respondent —- accused for the offence under ‘ssgctipn ‘302«.c;>f’
IPC’ _,
This Appeal coming on
KSREEDHAR RAG J ., de}ive;ic_cI theVf9I’}oWi11,g:.%~_ . A 1
% J ‘U n G ”
The material facts disclose that one
Sadhu Poojary i.$ i;h§: is the nephew
of the aeceaeeé night the accused
visited a drunken state and
was fimded the accused and sent
him out {)1} accused became wild and
..~ t}_1e’d”e.cea.sr:d with dire consequences. The
V”ac<;'=iV1SedA wéntfiway. On 23.10.1999 at about 6.30 a.m.,
sleeping on a bench. The Wife of the
dgceaséd gone out to fetch Water. PW»-1 {son of the
< Was sleeping in the house. The accused came
a club and dealt a blow on the head of the deceased.
%/
PW-1 woke up and by the time PW-1
accused, he had dealt another b}ow,__ flhé \
club (MC)–2) fiom the accused. .
deceased was admitted to "Hospi_ta'}:V' L'
The complaint of PW-1;_ is fiospital at
around 12.30 p.m. anaaéle as me. The
FIR is to The deceased
succumbed _ 1999 during the
The autopsy report
sustained open head injury
with bone resulting in subdural
and a homicidal death. The accused
'isi under section 302 IPC.
.. (complainant), a Witness to the incident
‘ «to “the act of assault made by the accused on the
in his presence. PW-2 (wife of the deceasw)
€:%}/
4
speak to the fact that by the time she came was
assaulting dealing a blow on the deceased and
ran away. PW-»5 (daughter of the
that on hearing the cry she comesio’ ‘the, ‘ 1’.
accused dealing blows on the (= 3.
Wit.I1CSS to the incident. ‘=2 ‘ace S ac
eye witnesses to the incident._W”” ” V
3. The trial court fouridi’ vfl:1e..prosecution has
proved the guilt, held that the accused
had no infe11tionV”‘to 4Vca11$e murder. Hence, convicted the
, aoooeedvi _ofi’ence under section 304 Part–II and
for a period of two years RI and fine
of accused is also convicted for the offence
_ coder section 451 IPC.
” The State, aggieved by the conviction of accused
I ..H’.foi’§IcScer ofienoe, has filed this appeal.
5. On thomugh consideration of
evidence of PWs~1, 2 and 5, we find _
believe that PWS-2 and 5 could I116 l
incident because FIR Iodged.»’i)3r.__
presence at’ FWS-2 and 5. the PW -1 is
quite credible and isnefi ._to cliebelieve his
veracity. The evidence (:1-f accused dealt
two blows the deemsed. The
medical had sustained
fracture2._of~. which resulted in death.
The act of t’1eacei:es.é{l_ the purview of Section 300
the injury, which is likely to
Vdeath’ “the normal course which amounts to ofience
ol’ amounting to murder. ‘File View taken
tlrle that the aeeused has not caused the
therefore, he is liable for conviction under
42/
section 304 Part II is untenable. The act of
dealing blows to the head and causing..
suggests that he intentionally causfid
in the ordinary course cause .cieath ‘eventtially k’
in death. ” V V’ V
5. In that View urine at the trim
court in convicting the under
section 304 is convicted for
the ofienceny Tand sentenced to life
The is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. The
~. pay to the amicus curiae.
Sd/-
Judge
Sd/-J
Judge