IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TI-IIS THE 4??! DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2;)
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUsTiae:EKfsREaQ'rL'£R
AND; _ . 'v
THE HoN'BL1«;_ MR: JU'é;j1<:§;'£'é.;V%xf,F1NT0
330;':
State :§hroqAgr1T.fAmrL§fhuf?¢11¢e.. V ...APPELLAN1'
(By Sri. ;Bt;4avarii'si;f1;§h, Appellant)
.....
“:1 Raja @ Palli,
‘ S;’ti_;Lat_eNanjundaiah,
Ag~ed’j’about 35 years,
Eeftaswamy,
V S/0.Siddaiah,
Aged about 38 years,
‘ ” [3, Nanjundachari,
S / 0.Late Krishnaehari,
Aged about 39 years,
4. Gangadhara,
S / 0.Kariyanna,
Bettaswamy, Najundachari, Nanjappa {Al 2
to A-5) were quarreling with
husband had given a sum of’E?_s.2,00Q_/0? to
this was witnessed by them, theyywere enmity with
her husband and theyzljyéfere in this
connection. On herself and
her children the liusband had gone to
play cards. about 8.30 pm one
NanjaiVahllllca1ig’.§’_.V informed her that her
husband by the accused persons and
deadbodyillof _her,l’1usband has fallen in a pit belonging to
onelChikkagangaiah’.”it When she Went near the place, the
accuseld«going away from the place of occurrence and
and gave complaint to the police. The said
comptaint was received by the police at 2.00 pm on
5i4l;’i23_001 and a case in Crime No.33/01 is registered for the
offence punishable U / s 302 IPC. The police after completion
of the investigation, have flied charge sheet against the
accused persons. A4 by name Nanjaiah has died in the
intervening period and hence case against A4 is abated. The
appeal has been fiked against four other accus–eidr.befor’eAV’V
Court.
4. PW1 and PW4 eye ‘-.v;:t1>;_.eé:~.V’e3’s””t¢5 the’
incident. They have turned;whdstiliemto the~–..cavs§e of the
prosecution. PW4 to aAe:y’e.vwitnesses, have
also turned hosti1e__to the oi’theV.pr~oaecuti0n.
5. has conducted the
inVestigativnri§*’i.t.’ M V i i
6.’ ” who has conducted PM
exarnination”o.n dead ‘body of the deceased. He has found
asananya as. six injuries on the person of the deceased and
opined.évtheiddeath of the deceased was due to shock and
haen1orrhat’gEe’iVas a resuit of injury to carotid arteries and
internaijugular veins as per EXP 18. — PM report.
7. PW20 — Parvathamma is the wife of the
Wtfeceased. She has stated that on the date of offence, when
she was in the house, her husband and daughter was akso
present. After her husband went to piay cards by taking
/2
6
Rs.4000/– which was kept by him by sale-of herv.
husband did not return till 8.OO:=__vpIn-,A.chence.:
daughter to the house of —
Nanjaiah came to her house told her
that the accused near the
manure pit belonging to which is at a
distance of “‘fh.ereafter, she went to
the said her way, she met her
daugk;.teru%: toidtvtther that the accused were
assaulhné iorder to kill him. Learning the
inforrriationg’ she .went. near the pit and saw all the accused
pe’r.sionseV.runningH away. She has stated that she saw axe in
tif1e’Vdo4f4Vt;’§:1′,’:..Machu in the hand of A2, another Machu in
thethand On seeing her, the accused told her that they
have ‘fi_ni:shed her husband. She saw blood stains on the axe
“it andjmachu. There were two notes of Rs. 10/ – near the dead
Sbody. She has further stated that some one in the village
seems to have given the complaint. She did not lodge the
complaint. However, the police have recorded her statement
and she has given statement before the police and her
a-
/f
she went to the place called Hullul(oppal1_1;”Thereis «a W
near Hullukoppalu and she went ih_ere? afll!
accused persons namelyf Palli Rajah’
Bettaswaniy, Nanjappa, ‘pésliéj,/xlulitirig her
father. She has statedthat aisAS$1l’u1i_tede.0_I1 therigh,t side of
the neck of her father, cut bleeding
injuries. A-2 and ai5ai;_1téd Machu on the
chest, body of her father. Her
and there was profuse
bleeding: vinjuriesisustained injuries, he saw her
father the ground. There was blood spilled on
A.Thella§{e”and machhus stained with blood. She
al two Rs.10 notes having fallen down. She
hasllfurtherilistated that she could see the incident because of
street”1ig11t and moon light. She has watched and seen the
incident from a distance of about 5 feet and because of that
she could not save her father and she was frightened by
seeing the axe and machhu. in the cross examination, it
suggested that she has not seen the incident and that there
u
is no street light near the place Where t1*Ie”i.’ri:cid’eI:it’-tooilti”= 2
place.
9. PW22 — Praneshw’Rao is e{‘he’adV cohustable,”
— Chikkarangaiah and PW24 conducted
part of the investigati.o,;n:’:A«. is adstidgnatory to
Ex.P(b) and Ex._P 17 conducted by the
police.
10. 1: signatory to Ex.P14
Mahazetr. _’VI*’i:oiNje:rer_;E’ hostile to the case of the
prosecutiori. _
127 itfromdthe evidence of these VVitI1€SS€S, the
at”1eVatfrsed””Seésions has found that PW20 and PW2l are
not eye.4fw.i’tnfesses and there is no evidence to show that
accusedv’ ‘heifire committed the offence as alleged by the
prosecution.
13. Heard Sri o. Bhavani Singh, learned Add}. spp
M Sri Balagangahdar, learned Counsel for the respondents–
accused.
‘ ,
We have gone through the judgment of’ eouj:’ut V
and the ground on which the acc:t;sedun.av’eaa,§5e.en- acquitted’
by the trial court. On a carefu3.___per:isaI”of the’
the reasoning given by the leaeneo we find
that the judgment “Court “xbased on
materials on reeord perverse nor
capricious. fiaaeigment of the trial
court is “‘a::1d V{:>1’o»per. Accord-ingly, the
the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-{H
Judge
Sd/-}
NM?_