The State Of Karnataka vs Gouravva W/O Hanamanth Uppar on 18 September, 2008

k'€5EA$t'*'%.€'§.i"""s-iW$¢3"*?: §7,"'§i?'»*m.'$5§'""§'-         

IN THE HIGH COLERT OF     4%
CIR("T3U'I'I' BENCH   
THE :~mmaLB: MR;  
 A .' 
THE HONBLE  <3. RAMESH
DAT11[§VTi}fI_$ "ééWEMBER, 2003
    1~a»1?§:~RA1;5:3r{§;V%1558/2002
 5, -  ~ %

*me':s;::s;t;e '  %
Babaittgixkar P(3_li<::e - S "  .. Appellant

(:33; Sm{.Ar1umha R.[}esai, Add}. SP?)

1.

:”w /1′ Uppar,
5 1′ years, O::.j(;:”Ho11seh01cI work,

L R/0£€§eI;g’a1ag§utti.

H M ” Saba Uppar,
._ years, Occ: Agxicuiture,

T.1’¥;’_o”KaéI1ga1aguiti.

_ VT “Iviuf.tappa Harxamaxtxth Uppar,

, years, Occ: Agriculture,
‘ R/0 Kengaiagutii.

maflhtflww

…. vsvvnl us nvwnatnlnlufl nsun \.vq;u_ ur AHKNAII-Kltfl HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C011

4. Suresh Ham;-unanth Upper,
2-4 years, 003: Student,
R/0 Kengaiagntti.

Renuka Hazxalnamth Uppar, ‘ 1

31 yaars, Oars: Househcld work, 7

R/0 Kengaiagutti. ”

‘U1

6. S.-aravva w/0 Smmappa ‘
33 years, Occr I~i0:1$i1.gid work; .__ _
R/C: Kengalagutti. ” ‘ _ ‘ ‘ ‘ % _ Respo12c1<-znts

(By Advocaa; s:~i.s;v;'-"rag. "

my… »…V_v

This ;;Appi§a1__isA'1'i%@(1_ tinder Sec.3'78(}) and (3) of
Cr.P.C. fit; g1*émt».£sat*ic £0313 an appeal against the judgment
dated :4.,%5.<2002";;asse:g=:;y*%—:he I: Add}. S.J., Bijapur in SC
No.64/97 'acquitting ..;the"::e"sptjnde13ts/ accused 2 1:0 7 for the
oifences p1§i11§s£*;ab1€: tmtigt' Sec. 143, 147, 498-5., 307, 504
R/w S:-3,149 9:1' IP<:::; "

*’L1*i::s,%%vAAp;:;ea1 ié$Wi§ho1nii1g on far final hearing this day,

A’*F;i{I};;L’§{‘;§1i}1′(_”§;._RAMESH J. dtzlivared the following:–

JUI)GhmNT

V’ V’ ~ ‘T’1’~!:;.is”appea.E is by the State against the order of acquitta}
_””;j§a§§’:;ed’A by H Acid}. Sessions Judge, Bijapur in S€SSi{}I}.S Case

H V ‘Ne.:;.64/97 dated 14.6.2002 far the :t:>ffene::es punishabie uncier

860.143, 147, 498%., 387, 304 R/W 860.149 of IPC. On
wggé,

thigh anti her Saree caught fire. Having seen. of

them went away. She fell on the gjeund :g1’:*1(i” ‘get ‘e)»:ti:1g:3,is§i1eti’A. _

fire herseif. For 4-5 days she 4–.S* ”

days after the incident her riietlger earee
incident and thereafter her her parents
house at Beliubbi. treatmerlt was
given to her irythe thereafter elderly
pereens of the accused, but
they 3:9’ As such, later she filed a
c0mpleint.–. ‘ got examined the injured

and e)b1″zai:f’:ed ” eeififieate and iater statements of 7

_ were :’ec.Q:f_(1€td and ehargewsheet was med. After the

e<§fi1»ruiit;;}.offi*;e_c,ase under Seit; marked 9 documents. {)1} the diI’f3CtiOI’i, EZXJD-I was gm;

an uvvtu ur rwmnlnu-\nA H361″! COURT OF KARNATAXA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HiG!”! COU

Ixiarketi. Thereafter recorded the Statemems urider 368.313
J;*e»~

an uuuxl ur MKNAJAKA HIGH COURIAOF KARNATAKA H;
_ ‘ GH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH (2.00

12

izolding her hands and made her imnaobiiesz aild gm.’ mid

the COI1€11,1€3{. of the accused as narrated _3:駻 .– ‘s{)i{‘:’V–_

t.est.i;m0ny of the victim herseli E6 ‘tfia»ft’;”s:.Iii::’:’*es2ja’S;VOik1 a’ I

precarinus c:o3’1<iiti0r1 at that71in;.e l)O'1;-tiihg tiiat.
Subsequent cmzduct of the éédpgkaachmg the
poiice 1301* going to the gm': went a.1:{1g with
her In0t}1e;: to he;~V.{;at.iv¢”‘p£a§:¢,V iii: shows that all
that is not ԤrfiJ};%; rightly noted by the
Session$..Ji#§é’g§;’ V;:r2 gione, I11{}I’€: Sfi} Icxdgng of the comgflaizat aftrzr

I1&:z3i*’13:*~’ ‘Afii;1§9Ai§VV;§%*hiCh itself Sh€}WS to be Lmnatural. AS is

‘.:1of.iC€§d B33′ {$16 Sessions Judgfi that the compkaim is filfid
;*:2ffiei*4$3f10t1g11t when €116}? ccmld not come to Bi’-I’II1S. Except the
“”‘.”S{}V:EfS E£3Sf,iH1{}Ifty cf the Victim, Gthar wi’mess€:s are all hfiarsay

“.WiiI3.€Ss£:s as is m:>ti{:6:d. The ether Wi”Ei1€SS€S Whék have also

depesed that they are the viiiagerg fram her parents hcsuse

L2,:e-~

. .._.. ..-…..V_..V.-.-. uwnnzvnlnnfl ruurl LUUKI Ur IEARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HiGI’§ COURT OF KAflNATAKA I’§lGH’COUl

I?

versioza is a hczarsay. PW–8 has s:1ppo1’f;ed__ti*a{: $?(32f$¥i0fr—-<jI*.tI1€:

pi'ose<:utTi0r1 regarding the advise; ..t.c;~__the '–'ai€iC't1*S€:£ice regarding
the haI’ass1neI1f.f 1;1et.€id’ by the accused.
Although about the ov<=:1'f:A–act
of the a;t(i11$éd:vE3§;'–::§;: wéiizrzzéss in the CI'OSS-€X£iII1iI1a1Zi0Z]
1'16: }13s:V1adi1;':it&¥i"éiigffi got 80 stated befare the pelice in