High Court Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Prabhu S/O Narsing Hatkar on 2 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Prabhu S/O Narsing Hatkar on 2 September, 2008
Author: H.N.Nagamohan Das
-. 9 5 pm 2' M  aw "5 -"  'L:  '-' 'E; *3' ' =' c m   "V 2 '?%2"" *'":;Z3; '" ~  "'- ' "'" '* W" "
MWA!"'m. Maww mwwaw WW ¥<.~..Mikfi§'"e£¥'fi;§a:«~'~».»\nr%«'% §*"'§§§.:.vfe"}§ §.M€:3éo..%§%f§ iwfi' §*£e%§%§LmEm*E%M57X%§'§a'3¢ aiiwfié €..£«§%.§§w3§ Q: %Vm§&fi§'¢§v%«Ké'%%5§»-Wm 5"§§é:£>"§""i Q» g

Crifia. 1883 L' 013

33% 'i"Es§E": §iEG§~i Ci3'{§R'§' {:1}? KAE$Nf:TAI{Z¥'_ .'" % Q   

C::§~»2{;:U:':'* BEE\I€3}:i AT {}L::;f§3:£§}2G--;a"' -- 7}:    %

:::;r'§£:3 aims '"£"£~fi%3 32% £393' £3*F':=.SE§3'FE%§'isfiBg£;%3§?': 

§§F¢§Ea

{:§€}TME'E'€A{. APP.§§g;,.  :%1S:3}:3,/£305

§E1'£"%§?EiE.§*é":-  V   %   

S%,za:£.r3 af E<:a.I*r1ataT1~;2{...    ~ "

{B}; SmAn;1r9;a:;g'iL:3es§£%;§;' A§i'd.i%;$?P)M%"'%  

AN{}:»

1.

__

?rab}ji1§, ‘E3 /’ 0 I§’a*;s*$:£V:1g SE? fatkar,

‘ .Ag3«:1 “a’i3’e:>ut’M’62 }?<:ar§;
€}c:c _; ;'a.gr'i§:2}i.uEf€,

"§'33fi.:§{' : B.

— V {}:1.1a{§s’g:i€31’§ao,
Q Dhmidiba Hat,_}. Ekamba,
Vj Tahzk : Auraii M B.

Manik Bai,

W/0 GuI’1wat;h Rae,
fiage abaut 47′ years,
SS5: : Nii,

mg: E~£QN’BLE MR. JUS’E’E{“.3E _Ij:i.V’i”‘~x.’…:_§\5;.§GAM€}H§§Ef§§ §DAS

.. .App<:11ant

?€,'.,;<-'%,.,?%'s.W"i§" Q?' §§£W%%fi«a¥'«§§§€£% %%%%i'§TE;%**2 i';'§Q§J%'E" $9?

"s
3'
g
??

,2

3
3
5
..§

vwm

Cz’§,i5’~., 2893 ()5

12/ G Eikamba,
Taiuk : zfiurazi – B.

{;8ySr£.f3.{3,§Sria1é.da;3pa, ;xdv., my R1 3;-::{i”‘R3j; fl

This {“i:’;%:I1i1′:aE Appéai is§E2e{i-.:3r1déi*-,Sécti9;”{‘i3.?§’8_{_V3) 55 (3;.k:»

CRRC. by the SP? for {I516 State.._p’rayiI1g’—thait ‘¥:hi’3 £9{0I1’1334 péiSSaid bgyxhe 1r>.'<;";.,"Vx"«'1'<;: W :1,
Bidar, ix": S.C.N0.84/ 1998*». _a;;:qt.j:ittii1g'~ jibe respoildentsf
accused far the ofiisz-mass punishable :.1;f::ir;:?, Ssctions 498»-A
and 305 ::,/w S<=:<:.34 m::.V%A»% V A'

This Cfim§ii1a§."'Pg§j5é2A gm 'fer hearing this day,
the CC}i3I'{ d€1§1.f¢r&~r§ fiiaz :fQ11<3_:?vi11g:"~ « ._ V V

A ;_;f§§;E;g§3;%s}%~ENT

_ 'i'1":i::.§jé:;3.;;)§;€:a1 ié' °(.i§E'€§:T_lj§€vC3 against 'Chi': judgment ané arder

of"a.§:<§1};jt?g§ .dba?;€(i:VA"§%5;.1§.2QQ4 in SmC.;':'%'0.8f§-/ 1998 §3aSSf3d by

' v Fast T1' §fi:'E§ 'C(}t1:9f"§ ~Ef;= Bifiai".

V' '..f_' ~.f§'h$ appeflam, is the campiainant ami rasponcicnts

V' 'V_;%:ujt:"t}"1ei';acc11seci 'bezfore tbs 'Fz*§.aE Ceurt. II: this judgneni. far
' =f:{}fi\£€f}i€}'1C€, the parties are refarrsré ta their siams befczre the

Trig} {'i<:su:*:.

7’\_,

3′,-M2

_

W.,.,..mm a’fiflWW WWW W mmm-mm WW mmm’ W mmmmm mm»; azmm” W wawmamém §«§’§$’§m m

Crilfi. 1863 { 05

U3

aémits that he was not visiting the hause 0f__–*’;::1is”

accuser} Na. 3. Thia Wimess furthar admits 1:h:9§t”%ié: i;$ ” V’

2-3 hsuses away from tha heuse of a<ic:.1s?é_é'~ N<}';'1._ '

this witnsss has met $6611 accuigeii' -..,?;si*::3. 1'" <:';f:_J:c:1"£é}vingV'wi£:E'i his" '

wife Sumari. PW4 admits in €*€it§jen.§e7" fl3at. §t}1raugh
S9m€§)OC¥}-', he came {:9 Néll was
quarreling Wm: his %-*2€;i1*°Z':_. $35 11:) personal
imowlezige sf 1 and his wife.

6. _ ‘i’ria1;{:4:–4..”‘ profaerly appreciating,

awessiixg and “~f.§’1e material witnesses

has “am has failed tn prova
and estab}§s£§_ ‘rm accused. E find no

jasfififislc, with tin imyzxgned judgment

. andwfhe ‘i’r:ti’2:1 i?.o111*E:. For the rémons stated above,

., 1. dismissed.

Sd/4…

Judge

dh*