The State Of Karnataka By Range … vs K L Gopala on 8 December, 2008

7_"f01lowifig:

accused on the basis sf the interested vezsipn cf
these witneases. The trial Court has takefiA§mt0
consideration this aspect of the m§EEé: H$fi§'
rejected the version 3f the prG3ecufii§§,éé::fie%éu

was no independent c0rroboration,Aj

EU. Thia is an ap§é&$ agaifist'thé égquittai
and the apyellaté, Couft' wo&Ld be 'filww in
interfering wiih the Qfdé:é;Cf_ééquittal and even

if a second #iew is gdssifile, tfie View accepted

gar: ,éann5t§'be~ disturbed. The

\

by the :.r'i;3i__ 
scrutiny of thé ¢videnga ifi the COHCEXK of the
submissicnsg made' by> the  £ea:n@d Govt., Pléader
does not r@veal=anfwhifit E3 warrant interference
iliegaiifiy ié fihe order im§ugn@d. So, I answer

tha Apoi§tT'Lfig.hegative and[ p:$ceed to pass the

O R D E R

_-_T§é’appeal is dismigsed. No costs.

3Md/:5 ‘L
J

BWS