IN THE HIGI»i COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG-ALORE
DATED TI--IIS'1'HE3 13'"! DAY OF Novt«:MBi;R 2009
BEFORE:
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE ARAL1 NAGAi§Ad' "
CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.625/20%) V Vi'
BETWE EN:
The P.S.I., Malpe 19.8.. T. " "
Udupi. ' _ A?3?PI+jI,I,:°.x:N.',!fV
(By S1'i.Vijaykumar Magage, I*iCGP)____d: -
AND:
Dinesh Anchan. V
42yea1's._ _, .
S/0 Late Hoovayjfa I'(;'EV)'[.i.<':ii'Iv. 4_ "
R/a Bagedi Mz1ne,b_'i{ei:'tr'1iari-mii V
Mooduthonse VTi.11é1g-:5,' ' T' L'
Uaupi Ta1uk'.*~ . _ A 3. .. RESPONDENT
This Crifi'ii11a1"--A}*5{.)Vea1i.'tedfiled under Section 378(1) & 3 of
Cr.P.C. _prayi1i'g t0Vg';far1t ieave to {tie an appeal etgainst the
judg111et1t'a,11d 0r'dei*O1' atrquittal dated 3.4.2009 passed by t.he
'Addit,ieiia15__Ci*.{i1 Judge....{..}«:".Dn} 8: JMFC. Udtipi in Criminal case
'V.V.NO.3.841/2007 'aequitt.i11g the 1*esp0nde11t/accused for the offence
puiiisht-1'p1e4 t1'F}d.Qf Section 324 of IPC.
This Agépeéii coming on for Admission this day, the Court
V V' nietdetghe i'0i'iQw'i1'ig:
JUDGMENT
=__Th0ug1″i this matter is listed today for admission. having
“~,;regd..rd to the natttre of the facts of the e.=.1s.e and the offeiice
~ _’ jalleged against the 1″€Sp()I1dt’1′}{ – accused. this appeal is taken for
final disposai with the consent. of Si’i.Vijayakumar Majagge.
w
learned High Court Government Pleader and his argtinients on
merits are heard. Perused the impugned judgmeiit and order of
aequ itt al.
2. Respondent W accused was tried byf:’1,l1e_l’leariied2
Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.} & J.?vi’FC,.y.j
referred t.o as the ‘Trial Court’ for sh’ortj:’_’_’for the
Section 324 EPC. By the inipiigned judg1iie1ii,_ aiidA”«;o’rde1′–i;dated.0′
3.4.2009, the Trial Court acquitt.eyd…lthe_ i’esponld’eniHjjziccused, of
the said offence. Thereforeftlie .State’1ias–e’o.rne, in appeal.
3. The casellotfilie on 10.5.2007 at
about 7 p.m., the injured complainant
was in there with l\/i.O.l sickle
and assauited.l.0n thereby caused some simple
injury. PW3, the inj’uiied=.eoInt)lai.nant. has stated the same in his
;j_..}:7’\J’.zT_5 is lD’r~.-i=–t–tis/1.Shasl1ikala. the l\/Iedical Officei’, who
leX’afl:tined”vtli’e;’1’nilu~red Complainant for the said injury. She has
deposed in liefieiiidence that when she examined the said injured,
_ he gave .. hefore her the history that he was assaulted with a
ii_foode1<2.jelL:b and also sickle. She has stated in her cross»
"~examinat,ion that the injury, which she noticed on the person of
ufitlie injured, Could not have been caused by assaulting with l\/i.C).i
siclde.