High Court Karnataka High Court

The State Through Miriyan Police … vs Jagadevi @ Bakkamma W/O Hanamanth … on 16 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The State Through Miriyan Police … vs Jagadevi @ Bakkamma W/O Hanamanth … on 16 September, 2008
Author: K L G.Ramesh
eompiaint. ae Qer Ex.9.§ euspectimg these

accuseé persens in Committing éhe murdee Qfi her

husband. The pelice, after regieierifigeigue

case, investigated the matter 5hd*CEilefi_ the.

chargeeheet against the aceused»§e§een§, "
5. Aifier cemmit@eL_*,proeeedin@s, ihe
learned Seeeions "fifidge --igemed "charges against

the accused, since Ehey Qieadefi hat guiltv and

eiaimeé :6 be tried;

Ch

. The wieeeeetien, in order E0 pzeve its

. K»

*eeef7ifi ell, examined 1% witneseee es §.We.l

my j'e~;;;,m: marked e:»:..e.1 to 9.29 and $4.03.:

_recordieg ihe evidence and efte

~::§:>-4..11:>_,,V- ~

'7. The learned Seeeions Judge, after

M
:3
(3
£12
M
!..J
'55
Li}
'I
C3"
EU
in

iefmulated the feliowing pointe go: his

ceneideratien: Efi"



«Eif-

Sesmisna Cczsurt, after ;éé§$§%:s:z5';,&.f2;°:E.;f:§w:?A?""i;~he.Xe%:;:i:°e'

aviéenm sf E>.¥3s.T.§. fia §  .ari'<i_ a1.s§::g the '}§~§:?.€; éan¢aA

mi" §?.Ws.é, '33 3 and   tmfigzvze
Qoz1c:33,2$im:': that:r.§ha ' §1:';9$$éV§L1f:f.io§i'"1*1a;é«:§§ failefi to
prova the guilfi' J "  in ccrzgaitting
the :?s§;1:dj§a~a';§..g§;§f  fiessimns Smirk,
in   gaéaasifiexed the avzidance czf

  {the ¢r@§.3;tw$rthi2":&$$ cf
théifi jimw and in what mamnmrg, the

c;3;_z.*cu2zé;'s':;:a;:';.'!:._:'§;.a3;;*v_ Qiiéencze in a cximmal case has

hen a§$t:e§;?'fiedg in '@219 light mi varieus

af him $12§:#a:r@ Smart;

21,. In 2313 gage sf' musrrfiarg it has to be

u x__ 'z;:sc.::@ri:.&:z:$fi as ta whether: the dfiath is

hamiaifial ax' fax: any ather reasen. ?.'&¥.°3.,§ is
him lady Eviedigal Qfficer whe candislcted the

pagtmrtezzi an the dead body of the deceasefi on
M

'2X3~4"'



_2i_

3.3.3

.199′? in the evening. She: .3;”si’~-sax;-§:i .i?.::.i:5 –VI,i”.\éL5\r e_ »AV

neticed twcs czontusions an the

postmortem was canmmted 41$
the dead body was h1g1″-:},y c1e*.’cc;;x§f§«§%sp:§.:7.:’i?..r.’:’n .; §:sf ” ‘ fonmicted
autopsy, ;;?:r’c”3i§-vned in tha
water, ” agar decoxwasitimn
than in .’usu:é;ii.'” H The dead hwy was

}:>1c>a’::,efi a.r:..ci .’=.,.’=~:»:<:;:".§.;¥.V<-3:v:1 ~:3.s1r*£w:'.';~"L' it. was cspineé that tha

:.':'«fi:.V1;'z:,*fAa..t:1;.'§i5f'a ;_ ,:w«::a11léAV'"' cane tc: twc weeks fies:

":;<;iia@<f2'si*1:§';c19iMV..VT '=E';11:t1'1er:, exridence is also given

wto e££jé;.it.A.T:;that the greenish fiiscalauratian

the * Vfiézsticles and the sack atzaf the left

=t3<s;: s€:?:iTpc:f3;_e~ dwict the presance cf about 5 ml.

on the cut sectien. It is cpined that

daath ofi the aeceased was due tat: squeezing

vi the te5tic§.e§,. Thus, it could be safely

KW"

_:;3.”

saw. that 2;: is hamicifiafiw E§wmrar~,~..’4’%;:?%§¢4″.j*r:%t;her

material exfldence on record do 3:}§;t’~.._c:j};é:*;3b::’1v:§’4hiVi’.uting’ the
link 1:’; the cxhain!’ ta» paint: mat
the gui3*t=;’~’t«$;:t«§§:é:,x’ci;6.§_; I Trial Cmzrt has
rightly’ thmgh the émth

ef the “a1::::.»;.§5*:.1_sa’V<1§ J is.-:;a'.?$ ._:72;<::z11:;,,¢ii d,a.3, .

tiiéébcva ciisaussion, it. is alga:

‘alga é%e’i’$’$’ian$ Ceurt is justified. in

“aT¢7z1g:1::i;-*.:,§t,iiig the accused parsans since the

§:.;°’ése§::;§;’t:i–2.f_~.;:::;2’1 has utterly’ failed ta pxmre its

case:-‘fiend the Q1213”: cf the accsuged in cozmrzitting

maxxfier of deceased Bizojappag Therefera, we

Ede not see any merit in this appeal.

W

-33,”

23. Accordingly, the j’a§§pe.3aL;_i.,:i,:g. ‘

The judgment cf the $e:ssiA::>;)$–_V_A.Cnu§.E’cA. *2i..s«. Vézfiérieby

conf i rznefi.

£6134