The Sub Inspector Of Police vs Nanjundaswamy on 8 July, 2008

I " S] 0. .. §fi;--x.'1adevé3}aik#a,
':_Agte:d. 30 yi'ss.,, 

' H H "    Kumar, Amicus Curiae for respondent)

.§f”‘(;’r.P.C. by the SP3?’ for the State praying that thi$ Honfiale
Court may be pleased to grant leave to file an appeal against

IN THE HIGH comm OF KARNATAKA AT
Dated this the am day of JULY , 2%fi§*8% C} :
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE & 7
THE HONBLE MR.JUs’r1cEV%”jg’~.% SREENIE’ASEéV'(§(§WVI)A
CRIMINAL. APPEAL f::ro;’z5s/2633

Betwean;

The sub~iI1spect<)1f<)f_Po1€:Ce,"*:1 .

[By sm.G,3ha§.rafii SV.P;F-.–vferfiappcflant – State.)

And:

Nanjurzciaswaliiém ., V”

I73}/ax.’
Aga.ra’:vihag<z%

. . Respondent

-zIr~a74′-kit-k

This Criminal Appeal is raga under Sec. 373(1) and (3)

the judgmem: dt.3-I–2002 passed by the Addl. C.J. (Jr.D11.)

. 2 -in not sns

3
tr.) the effect that there was a quarrel and accused asmmlted

P.W.2 with a chopper. The wound certificate ”

version of P.W.2 that he had sustained. ; z

edged Weapon. The complaint is

deiay. The inju is also ~e;&1:ate:y%

within a reaeonable e<)11*oborate
the evidence ef P.W.1 who is an
independent . haze" V' xiproseeution ease.
The View the prosecution has
failed to aecuéed is illegal and contrary
to the eviefenee on h

4. _’I’he’ wound certificate discloses that

any finaeture injury. She has

at the ulna joint. The nature of injury

shownjizn ‘Lx_v,x}::()11I1(i cezrtificate does not conform to the

«oefixlitiori o_fi~grievous injury. In that View of the matter, it can

that P.W.2 has sustained simple injury caused

. deadly weapon. Therefore, accused is liable to be

-eonvieted under Sec. 324 IPC and not as eoriiended by the

prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove injury on

A
P.W.1. Thcrefarc, the accused is held guilty of causing

offence against P.W.2 only.

5. For the reasons discussefii.Va’n¢iie, “the

trial Court is bad in law. is Sfiii -a§_dé§V4’V”}§15pea: 2 is’

partly allowed.

6. Accused is under
Sec. 324 IPC for; tcjnjy sentenced to pay
fine of Rs. s.1. for a period of 3
months. /’1K.’§§53iit?l%36I1sation of Rs.10,000/”

from the ‘

is of in terms indicated above.

‘ Tbs: of Sri. Kiran Kumar, Amicus Curiae is

V p1.*L=,’£t:’-%=.AV<«{i~–.VA«'oIVV1.V The fee. of Amicus Curiae is fixed at

I<s.5,0'.(3o./'+',

Sd/-

53?-98

Judge