Thimmarayappa @ … vs State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE' 

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY ()9 JANUARY 2009  I A'

BEFORE

THE HON'I:3LE MR. JUSTICE A s r§Ac§§;{;APzg;2;£%; .1: =  

CRIMINAL APPE_1_;\__i_, I*€O.1.2{)6 (SF. 

BETWEEN:

THIMMARAYAPPA ALIAS

CHAKUTHIMMARAYAPPA A A

3/0 LATE NARAYANAWA   '  '

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS'.  A     j

R/O    
VIJAYAWRA         
DEVANAHALLI   A.    APPELIANT

(BY SR1 c N1RAJ:.i AF5GR..«SHAVN'KARAPPA as ASSOCIATES,

AND

'STATE ()F'i:.KARhiATAKA  ..... ., .

"BY CPI, DEVA?-IAHALLI CIRCLE
D'E»VAVNAH,AE.Li.   ._

REP'-I'D.._-BY i'.I"3 s'rA':*:~; PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
I-nGH'c0URT'BI}.1L;3ING

 A""VBANGAL.{_}RE.-« 5:33 001  RESPONDENT

A   {BY SR: '1sA'risH R GIRJI, HCGP)

    ::;éi;;A FILED ws. 374(2) cmac. BY THE ADVOCATE
».  ma 'THE APPELLANT AGAINS1' THE JUDGEMENT DT.
=r1.3.6.2oe3 PASSED BY THE xu ADDL. (3.0. AND 3.4.,

E3'LO'RE CITY, IN S.C.NO.222[OO - CGNVICTING THE

 '».AP¥'ELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THEOFFENCES P/U/3.443,

 



304 PART ONE 91+' IPC AND SENTENCING H_I!_fi"'TO---.i 
UNDERGG 12.1. FOR A PERIOB OF' 6 MONTHS AND FINE-()_F '

RS.SOO/- 1.1)., OF' PAYMENT OF FINE HE SHALL-U'}iD:ER'CxO._' was" 1m§ic;1i1ig at Chikkathathamangala village situate

  limits of Vijayapura police station. His father

A'  had mauled' two wives and from the first wife he

{lime sons and PW.4-Mtmiraju is the son born to the

«>4



Ex.P.15. He took photographs -- Ex.P.7 and as the    

was taking treament in the Govt, hoepital 

watch on the accused. Afier the post  A ::_ f

the police constable pmduced the V(fiE1!_i'Z}18S ("j?_)If.'.'1l3  

deceased - 55.0.3 1 to 3 and   
mahazar - Ex.P.10. He   
the post mortem  Of the
accused-----Ex.P.3 a_1'1d"'«A:._c§*the1;.' %.i&a§:;;§ne:uts. On
completion of   "the charge sheet

against the  _ u ':7; 

3. BurJ.n'  'g i:hc  final' --  V t11e prosecution examm ed
PWS 1   and  iheflfievixvience got maxkcd the documents
    1 to 3. The statement of the

 [US 313 Cr.P.C. He has taken the

Vdefence "of eienial and has not lead any defence

"  tnal' Court on appreciation of the material on

 convicted the accused for the ofience pumsh' abk:

 (I) and Sec.448 of IPC and ordered to undergo

 'eimeprisonment for five years for the ofiimce punishable U /S

S "V304 part one IPC and to pay file of Rs.1,(}0O/--~ and for the

;>Z,



VPW.4, 1§o«...oth;ér fiiificsscs have supportad the version of the
"   in the absence of any corrobomtieon, he
V   the ctmviction of the appellant is illegal and
V H  So also, it is his conteniion that the aliegation
 'aéééinst the accused is that he slapped on thy: chceks of the

S deceased and thereby, she fell down and thcxewer, the

'3

effcncc punishable 11/8 448 of IPC ordcrfi to 
imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of 
Aggricved by the conviction and sentence the    

appmachcd this Court in appeal.

4. I have heard 11.16   ' "ffllffithc
appellant and the learned   AA 

5. The point'     is:
"Whether £:cnv1ct1o' ' n
of the  iifor "-the. 'oflbizmsz punishable
U/S:¥§_30"i"(l)v";é«:1sc1i"'S¢c,:448 -'of IPC and the

sentencg th¢1*eI"1.t11e ofthe "deceased were found and therefore, he

s{§i2133§té"  has been corroborated by the



7. The perusal of the evidence led 

pmsecution reveals that apart from PW s.4Hgn;1d 14.;  * _  '4  

and 12 are the eye witnesses   

but they  not supported the pit-3__ccuti1é>:a_ 'and   .

treatcti hostile. It is in th'm  
the evidence of PW's.4 and   of
assault on the deceased by th c_   

8. So far  fd,
PW.4, Pw.14    it is not m
dispute.     of_  that his father
Vcz1kataPPa   to the: accused for m
amount of --Rs:1,(;()(\._[f  death and that IPWA had
   of  - to the accused am took back

thef'  them was strained relationship

-- hemreénjile  £nembers of accused and PW.4. It is also

ithfi' 'version' _of. the prosecution that since aficr fht': sale

   the accused used to quarrel with the

V"  and the family members for no xmscn and that

 were scared of the accused and never filed my

  ,"compia:i:at against the accused in that behalf. So far as the

94



Vtalmn. loefom oixéiminafion and infact, the prosecution has

_,  touch cfiorts to obtain the finger prints to taliy
flfingcr prints of the accused. But any how, the

H  vcrsia-11 of Pws.-4 and 14 reveals that the accused
 'siéipped on the left check of the deceased and when she fell

 "wdown, he kicked hm" on the abdomen. So the medical

same manner with regard to tho slap by the accuscdoii   -5 é 

deceased and kicking on the abdomen.

9. If the evidence of PWs.4 gnd 
the context of the evidence of PW.  
post mortem examination on  thc "of  
issued the post mortcm _§§':x';-2§'_.v  there
were finger marks over the   'olackhsh in
colour and     So far as
the cause of of opinion that the
death is doe  oboe}: due to reflex vagal

inhibition. *r1:§.e..15acu5'r<   that the izxjuzy is

simple, b§1t"thc doafl'1 is dué to neumgcmlc shock. No doubt
   PW.1, an cfibrt has been made

by   as to whether the finger prints were

9;,'



   .,c_injt1;tiesv-.--..ixxc1usivc of a Iacerated wound

   x 2 cm. on the left cheek mad reduces
 teeuderiyxesexf over the Jefi: mammary regima and

V    the superior aspect of left shoulder joint.

X    has certified that these injuries are simple in
  and even in his evidence, PW.2, the Doctor has

  to these injuries. The injury certificate itscif reveals

14. The prosecution has examined PW2   A' 
Kumar, who examined the accused and it is  
complaint Ex.P.4 that after the assault Zen  , 
the accused and after the death of    
returned to the house, he told the   
a complaint against the  foif  ct the
deceased and at that time,  fitlcstioned
PWA xegatding   for'   it is
alleged that  a club and in
such    by 1=w.2 and
the injuiy   The perusal of the

injury  accused has sustaizeeti as

 on the mrieto occipital region and an

51.,

 



-- VTEXJ3. 10 for the seizure of M03. 1 to 3 (the
:c;:«:§.:mg. en 'e;__§I¥ body of the deceased) afier the postmortem
 P'Ws.8 and 13 have been examined to prove
V. the spot mahazazr and as there is no mcnmma' ' ' ting

 Aciefeuznstanee in Ex.P.6, I do not think that the evkieme of

that the assault on the accused was by PW.-4 Munitajei ..
the presence of the accused at the time of the    
been corrohcrahed by the evidence of  asit   
the assault on the accused was on 25.  f"T~A
at about 8.30 am. It could be   by 

the act of the accused in cayxsing  daihis '::i1o'#1,1e1§ 
assaulted the accused with vé'%c1a;y morning

of the incident.  P'W.3 the
Police Sub Inspgttef   and sent

the    the Magistrate

and PW25  '.1:l__1e shifting of the deceased

in the autoxieiisiiaxv  whereas, PWs.6 am 12

are the atf'.es'-.ti_x.xg   see inquest Ex.P.9 and it also
  finger  on the cheeks of the tied

due  The prosecution examm ed PW.?e the

94

 



 

I9

ORDER

The appeal is afiowed in part. The ”
acquitted d’ the changes under Section’ 433 A’ V
and he is held gukly for the offence H
IPC. Taldm into cmsideration ~1C).fi’i?.Il(“.tVi’#, tiifi:
accused is ordered to Imdergo year
and to pay the oiRs¢§;i3ooj§;%1ifrh§_%§§pe11ant is
further directezd vcdthin
three monthsg’ ii the compensation
amount, 1:113 PW.4, the son of the
desceascd. ‘me to the benefit of set ofi’

.;::r. P.”<:.~ –

Judge