. 'A ._ NAi*¥JAI*iEG§JD
IN THE HEGH coum' OF KAENATAKA AT EANGALoR[E. '~- _
DATED THIS THE 2 18'!' DAY OF AUGU SfE'§'-:§Oi378j": E
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTI( 3E I'i[g':'il'§'A1'4I{}1A~' E
CRIMINAL REVISION PE;_FiTIQN'N(5.359V' Q4§:g_OWQ§ A
BETWEEN:
1 SWAMY RAoE@VswA;s1Y'» --
s/0 EHEEMARAO g
AGED A.;12oU'I?;30VYRE ..
Rj'A'I' SIND3'-IUV'A'L_LI wj;;.1,AeiE_ "
NANJAN,GU.D;']'Q ' ._
. _ E PETITIONER
(By Sri IVi'v.AT£xR&¥vA'V ' E"L;'=A DvocATE)
AND: « ' " V'
1 'STATE Ev 'ragrijgmésue
'RURAL-._POLIC'E~ .....
_ » _ RESPONDENT
('Ey ':~.:zria; §iAsziU1$aANrHARAYAPA, HCGP)
'"4::RL[R1-* FILES U/s.397 CR.P.C PRAYTNG TO SET ASIDE
'THE JUDCEMENP ms CRL.A.N{3. 157/2004 DT. 23.12.2005
PASSED ':3? THE 9.0., m*.c«v, MYSORE AND IN C.C.NO.
- E W63/2002 ON THE FILE OF' ADDL. JMFC, NANJANGUD DT.
" _ :5;'2«2.:zoo4.
This criminal revision petition, coming on for
" this day, the Court, made tht: fczliowingz
V. of tiiC_(:Q1'lCllIT6nt findings recorded by the
the I appellate court, it is necessary to
awmnx. PRASAD & Am. reported in
Crl.L.J. 1627, in the ease of wherein the
V' Siispreme Court has held ;
ORDER
The accused was tried, convicted
for offences punishable under Ser§1:ie:1s«
C.C.No.763/2002 on the file, of C:iviA1′ JAi1dge»’.(J1f.’Dn;j>. 8g. ‘
JMFC, Naujang1Jcvl.q…V:” T had filed
Cr1.A.No.157/2f}€34_. before ;;;nc Court at
Mysore. 12. 2005.
2. of the trial court
and I guilt of accused for
offences piiillgshaiileeindef Sections 324 and 326 IPC.
refefte flie7j}_1Vdérnent of the Supreme Court in JOHAR
“9. Revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court in terms of Section 397 read with
Sedion 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
:3 Imtited. The High Court did not point out
aw. LeL>»»~~(-EL
, f:he.’¢e1VJ1_’t$e~’beIow have committed any error
“.__of;’iaW; » below have left out relevant evidence
‘ ‘.eonsi§:ieIeI{:idn irrelevant material.
‘ I5. I in brief the case of prosecution is as follows:
“;=S’iI1dhavaIlj Village, Naznjangud Taluk. They are
any error of law on the part of the .
Trail Judge. 12 was not opined %
relevant evidence has beenfiefi ‘eat A
consideration by the court of 77
The High Court entereci”v'”ira.,:.f§'<J the bf
matter. It wmmented
of the Autopsy #0 be re-
view by another
4. If; been held in the above
judment, evidence if it is
fxfi courts below have taken into
‘i’he accused and PW- 1- Johny are rwidents of
adjacent landowners. There is some dispute between
__ from .1?-eviclence oarecord:
V -V of Accused came to that place and
K ‘V llleuestioaed PW-1 as to why he was erecting fence to
1:§Al’Qel§AApat11way leading to the land of accused. PW–1
V ll assertw his right. Accused snatched a chopper from
I 1. The learned counsel appearing for petitionerhas
made following submissions: T T
(i) There is no satisfactory proof
injury sufi’eredbyPW—-1.
(ii) The evidence of PWs. 1, 2 lgndfiLisgiriconsisteut, 5
and highly discrepant. _ V.
(iii) The accused has been to
the pathway dispute —-1 aildaccilsed.
(iv) There is ineone:e:.e§aey;eediee1 evidence
and direct evidences’ T
12. I evidence and judgments
of the facts are established
1» ‘relevant place and time PW»-1 and other
1§1*osecutiof1–._w;it:riesses were erecting fence around the
‘PW~2 and assaulted PW»-1 and P’W~2 with that chopper.
The medical evidence given by PW37 u – Dr.
1
counsel for accused would submit, the courts beibw
have not considered the extenuating ”
imposing sentence. The learned counsel Z ,
the accused does not bear any _
The occurrence was not pre«~:;1edif.-3,t_:e<:1, fives fa '
dispute between PW-I and
Accused had not gone
with any Weapon._I'W- 1 leading to
the land of accused.
On passed by the
trial count I find that courts
below have ‘net. extenuafing factors.
_ 20. T3133’ about 25 years at the timey of
The occurrence was not preqnediated. The
accueed to the place of occurrence armed
V with The quarrel between accused and
H K when PW-1 asserted his right to fence his
block pathway leading to the land of accused.
* occurrence was preceded by a quarrel. PW-1 and