IN ‘i’HE HIGH mum’ OF’ 2<ARNATAK.}$;
CIRCUIT BENCH, GULBARGA
Dated thtz 26131 day :31' August ' V' '%
:3 E F 0 RE : j;
THE HQNBLE MR.JUSTIQE :4V,§§AGA1’»Ii*3;#;’§’}~L5aN’:’; %’
CRIMINAL APPEAL’L%x§s; 649 kx«%%2o03
BETWEEN:
States through Eeputy V _ V
Supexintendent of Poiicé,’ » .’ –
Liflgasugur =
Raichm' {:?ie:f:ri_c*is.. " Q A' »
V V ' Appellant
: {._B3? M. Anew, Add}. S33′. P. )
AND: V’ ” %
/o-sx~i Thixnmanna Kurbur,
Aggci abeut: 50 years,
V’ V. ‘ —
. $1 esri Bheemrayya Ktzrbur,
‘ Aged abveut 23 yaars,
‘ Agicuiturifit, R/0 Gabbur,
Beodurga Taiuk.
. . Respondants
( By Sri A.R.Desai & C.S.Sudheer, Advucaies ~
absent. )
2
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1) 8:. (3)
0f the Cr.P.C3. praying to $3111: leave to file an apptial
against the juégmant dated 39.12.2002 passe£i *.1i_5y–Vv
the Addi. Sessions (Amocity) Judga, Rai§ih1i1.’§j _
Spl.A.C.N<:). 2:/2001, acquimng the
accused fer the: ofiences pur1isfI'i£ibie«
323, 324, 504 ;*/w 34 of the I.?:§%';'¢.
3(1){x} of the so & ST (mg) A(_;t.'
This appeal corgnjng {)11~—-ff§f–iié:z1:*ing"tiLis dziy, the
; Evy the State caliing in
questiafi iftjé {ha trial court by which the
r(§s§3o;:d::nts~acc1;$ c(} are acquitted ef the offences
' ;pur;ig.§;ab§é :"ut;der Sections 323, 324, 504 r/W 34 of
H 1.:n&er Sacfian 3{}}(X} of tha SC 35 ST
{mg} Vgpi. 4'
A ' ' Tbs §r:3$¢cufi(:s1';. cam, in brief, is in thze efieat
1§'.h&t an 94.2082 at abcut 9.03 gm. in Gabbur
Viilage, when Garmgaéhar, $011 $2' ?.W.'2, Wars mcvting
abet}? an the ups? of their heusss, Ami, being the
iestimony of the prosecution witnesses
therefore, the triai coxxrt, taking mate of tiletéé _
and the enmity between the pzgxftiezs, .1*:<~:1ci : the '4 " =
yrosecutien cannot be said ¥:cj=..1ha§-re jgrévéd "its V<:.j:a5'e:::;
beyond afl reassnahle d{'.¥'L 1bf§ a:i};i~._
accused were acquitted of rise
to this appeal by thé Sz§ate.'A–.L u V n
5. I have; VS.P.P. far the
State Smtié .éif1c’i’ Vperused the entire
recerds of ‘(.1215 V _ H???’
6. Theugh submitted that
haé ” p3;£;1§;_¢(i evidence 01′ the injured
wit1″3.¢$s§éS ‘t1fi3<f.v.§t1'ia} court was in error in
_d§isbe}iea:ii':g" {f1f:':ii' – éézigion, having gone through the
'?::#si%°i<:ie:";ce 521. §*:'i,c{}i*é ané tha:-5 rmssning sf iihé ma}
» iii; mmbie ta amee myself with the
'$u_b'Ifiis?;;gions made as afaresaid.
" The masens for ihis conclzjsien are net far it)
geek irzasmuch. as no inéependent witnesses hairs
jx
,}
accused has been acqtzittad, for
purpose of ascwtainixlg as to whetlxer. ;; -1- '
of the accused realiy committfid
ofience or not. (See é_
State cf MP.) The ';;a.rixi¢::131.s=.
followad by thc5 _ap§c:-11251.5:
considering the _
judgment of a<iq1;itta1'wis" fi1¥:¢1*£'eré$V'i)r:}y
when there and
subsianfiai reas011–s:"Aféiifilgizig " if the
V V' clearly
. Vfeiévarzt and
conviilciifigh ' . A1': iifmatifizfiais' A " ' "ifive been
the process, it
is a Co?£11';)e1}i2aLg"i";€'zm3s'€3:":"f0'ir interference."
_._1G. .I?'.if)r the f0r:e"g£:i;;;g_&reasons, I see no merit in this
AV'3,pp;ea1V.V Agcortiiimgly, ii is dismisssd.
%%%%%"3k¢;fw
5d/mg
j 13 dgrg