{"id":34227,"date":"2010-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010"},"modified":"2015-10-19T16:08:10","modified_gmt":"2015-10-19T10:38:10","slug":"state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"State By Malur Police vs Venkateshappa on 21 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
State By Malur Police vs Venkateshappa on 21 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao B.V.Pinto<\/div>\n
 \n\nCRL.A. NO. 468 OF 2oo4:~  E\n\nPRESENT\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 14'?\" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010\n\nTHE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.sREEDHARjR2$_O_:\"'\u00ab,VA\n\nAND\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 3.:\/;\"PI$I?frj\"\"\u00bb   \n\nCRL.A. NO. 468 oF\"2e7o4\u00b0-.t  \n\nCRL.R.P. N_0-361 OF 2004 ' _  \n\nBEIw\"1\u00a3ENe;.}':::, \n\nstate\"'by1'Ma1ur:I>c$1:c;%.v \u00ab ..  .. . 2 \n\n(By S_ri (}D.Ef311_Vava.1%;-i Sing\ufb01, spp)\n\n' _ 'V\"zZeI'Tk'afcVe'r:.happa,\n\"S\"\/*0. Baehappa,\n\nAgei\ufb01 about 40 years.\n\nE .. ;N,<':lg<":4'tpp\u00a31,\nS10. Bachappa.\n\nAged about 26 years,\n\nDhanegowda,\nS\/0. Bachappa,\n\nMunishamappa,\nS\/0. Bachappa,\n\nAged about 26 years,\n\nAppellant\n\n\n\n \n\n5. Lakshrnana,\n\nS \/ 0. Baohappa,\nAged about 22 years,\n\n6. Shekar,\nS \/ o. Bachhappa,\nMaj or,\n7. Srinivasa,\n\nS\/o. Bachappa, . \nAged about 18 years, i\n\n8. Lalithamma,   ._ pg --.\nW\/o. Nagaraja  N'agap_pg;.__\n\nAged about"28 'grears," =   V. \n\n Agl'Jagai*aj11,"~.pV"' _\n Aged alo'out"22 'yearsg, -- .\n\n10. :'va:i11thayra\ufb01if\ufb01a',"'--.  A ' if\nW\/lo. Venkatelshap'pa,\n' " Aged a"o.o_u't 35 years,\n\n. 2 ~ ,5\/o_'.~..Ci1--i.kkabyrappa,\n0' ~tMa.J0r;iset.e"'\nPe'thanahalli.\n\n .. ""All.are R\/o. Nallappanahalli village,\n-Malur taluk.\nRespondents<\/pre>\n
   AB. Patil, Sr. Counsel for Mylaraiah Assts., Advocate)<\/p>\n
This Crl.A. is filed U\/s.3″\/8(1) 8: {3} of Cr.P.C. by the<\/p>\n
N State PP. for the State praying that this Hon’ble Court may<\/p>\n
be pleased to grant leave to file an appeal against the
\njudgment dated 31.10.2003 passed by the Prl. S.J., Kolar, in
\nS.C.No. 136\/95 — acquitting the respondents\/accused for the<\/p>\n
 P ..\n<\/p>\n
offences pumshable U\/s.143, 148, 323,  .;ru\/w.<\/p>\n
Sec.149 of IPC and U\/s.3, 4 and 5 of the I;::idiane_Ex1’j1o_siVe
\nSubstances Act. The Appellant\/State pra3,r_sV_\u00a7h.g1t’V–.tV:1*;e aIv:L)\u00e9)veb <\/p>\n
order may be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P. NO. 6}. OF 2004:-\n<\/p>\n
BETWEEN:–\n<\/p>\n
Smt. Ram,<\/p>\n
W\/0. Ragashekar, <\/p>\n
Aged about 26 years, ‘ J __
\nR\/ at Bappanahalli v1’11age._  V
\nHuralagerl P.o..~3ta,  I ‘
\nMalur Taluk,  ‘ _. , . <\/p>\n
Kolar D1s\u00a7tf1ci_;’—-.  e   <\/p>\n
 …. _      Petitioner
\n(By Sri K.S’.1\\?:_,K\u00a711’an’tE1’V,’A\u00a7jVQCa.te)
\nAndy<\/p>\n
1 ,  ‘V Sri Ve\ufb01kateshsppa,<\/p>\n
 N\ufb01gappa.\n<\/p>\n
1″ . \u00abA ” “Sf i_”_vI)__f1;e_iriegowcia,<\/p>\n
 Munishamappa,<\/p>\n
 A.  __  Lakshmana,<\/p>\n
7f6;e  sn Shekar,<\/p>\n
‘ ”  Sri Srinivasa,<\/p>\n
S1. N0s.1 to 7 are children of
\nSri Baehappa, all are majors.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.<\/p>\n
11.<\/p>\n
Smt. Lalithamma,<\/p>\n
W\/o. Nagaraja @ Nagappa,
\nAge Major,<\/p>\n
Smt. Sumithramma,<\/p>\n
W\/o. Nagaraju,<\/p>\n
Age Major,<\/p>\n
Smt. Munithayamma, ~   j
\nW\/0. Venkateshappa,
\nAge Major,  <\/p>\n
Malur Taluk, _<\/p>\n
Kolar District,    –\n<\/p>\n
Now R;\/’atji\ufb01anakanahalliw Vi11–age.,…=
\nVakka1erii’QjIiob1i,t_’ __    .\n<\/p>\n
Tf1}\u20acWaI1’\u00e9t151:.a.11i~– Post)’ ‘ . ‘  .<\/p>\n
All are R\/0. Nali\u00e9appanahtaiii  ,<\/p>\n
Koiai’.  <3: Diet_r1ct.\u00ab ._  V  ,<\/p>\n
   A<\/p>\n
Sjo.' Chikkabyrapoa;\n<\/p>\n
Age .._41\\\/iajor, . 7 <\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
. _ Pethan_aha1h.\n<\/p>\n
Hoskote”Ta1uk, .\n<\/p>\n
 Bangalore District.\n<\/p>\n
” M.  of Karnataka,
\n“i-‘{ep.__ byits State Public Prosecutor,<\/p>\n
I-iighl Court of Karnataka,
\nBangalore.\n<\/p>\n
 V’ ..[By Stir-‘A.B. Patil, Sr. Counsel for
\n” l\\\/iyiaraiah Associates for R1 to R11)
\n2_(By5Sri G; Bhavani Singh, SPP for R12]<\/p>\n
Respondents<\/p>\n
This Cr1.R.P. 1s \ufb01led U\/s.397 r\/w.Sec\/101 of Cr.P.C. by<\/p>\n
A “the Advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Court may be pleased to set aside the judgment and order<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
dated 31.10.2003 passed by the Prl. ‘in
\nS.C.No.136\/95.  ”   ” — ‘ ”\n<\/p>\n
This Appeal & Revision Pet1t’i’on\u00ab coining’for._hear1’ng’=onbT. 00<\/p>\n
this day, PINTO. J., delivered the folilovyingfp ‘  *
\nJvnamshi.\n<\/p>\n
These two cases  ofggsameijvudgrnent dated
\n31.10.2003 passed the–  Judge, Kolar in
\ns.e.No.13s\/1,995 acq’tiita\u00a71g_” alvle.th-e\ufb02respondents of the
\noffences  :f1:48,0\u00e93, 324 and 302 I’\/’W.
\nSec.lv49ggv  4 and 5 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Explosives Su’bstar1lees~A\u00abct._. 15908.<\/p>\n
g 2. –. w*1q:1;\u00bb.a State'”has \ufb01led Cr1.A.No.468\/2004 against<\/p>\n
o3;der.h_of ackzjueittal, the injured complainant —- PWl has<\/p>\n
0  \/2004. Since both cases relate to same<\/p>\n
‘incident,’  ilcommon judgment is passed.<\/p>\n
“3: The parties in this appeal are referred as per<\/p>\n
0′  rank in the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
4. The Malur Police registered a case in Crime<\/p>\n
No.11l\/1995 on 15.03.1995 on the basis of complaint of<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
Kumari K. Rani, D\/o. Krishnappa for the aforesaid offences
\nagainst 14 persons. It is alleged in this complaint that grand
\nfather of the complainant Gopalappa has three brothers and
\nlast son of Gopalappa was Bachappa who was h_awrir1g_s.even<\/p>\n
children by name Venkateshappa, Nagappa,\u00bb<\/p>\n
Munishamappa, Lakshrnana, Srinivasa ;anc1{j~shekar. _1\u00bbI\u00a2=;:–._ <\/p>\n
grand father Gopalappa and Bach__hap’pa:’ar’eliving’ separ\u00e9ictely .<\/p>\n
and her father is having twiogrnalefchildrenand..tWQ_:3femalcf’<\/p>\n
children. The complaint is thereldest daughter and she has<\/p>\n
stud:iled”f’u’p.::r.0  w’as’wu\ufb02rorking in the house after
\ncompletii).g her alleged in the complaint that on
\nO5.()3. 1S\u00a795fa”t  am. the Survey Officers had come<\/p>\n
 Gram Panciiayath to survey and measure the lands and<\/p>\n
‘  village. One Krishnappa and Bill Collector<\/p>\n
“ocpa1ap-\ufb01g  another person had come near the house of<\/p>\n
the cornplainant at 11.00 a.m. and they had started<\/p>\n
if  measuring the land of Venkateshappa. They have come to<\/p>\n
fimeasure the house of the complainant. At that time, the<\/p>\n
 father of the complainant requested them to measure the<\/p>\n
house. At that time, the accused persons objected for<\/p>\n
measuring of the house stating that there is a case ” pending<\/p>\n
against the said house and therefore, the.-yy.hadj—-.5&;.a\ufb01.olus<\/p>\n
objection for measuring the house. Thereafte:r.gt’he’–Survey. <\/p>\n
Officers who had come to measure the.h:ou’s.e1 left tlheii’-place.’ It .<\/p>\n
is in the complaint that ther-e_afterl’ the Acc:.1s’efdvN_os._}i to <\/p>\n
mentioned in the complainltfltcvame near\ufb02to the place of
\noccurrence holding   chain and hand
\nbomb. They assaultedH_compl.a,inanifsVhfather Krishnappa. The<\/p>\n
accused ‘}LriVshnappa by means of<\/p>\n
knifelon   fell down. The uncle of the
\ncomlflainant  assaulted by Dhanegowda by
\nmeans ofklriifego_nAAhis’~~–sltomach. Kenchappa also fell down.<\/p>\n
hlereafftevr thelllcovmpiainant and others went near the place<\/p>\n
‘ gland both Krishnappa and Kenchappa and brought<\/p>\n
hinside  house. At that time, the accused Dhanegowda<\/p>\n
 Bhagyamma on her right hand, Nagappa assaulted<\/p>\n
2   Venkatamma by means of knife. After that, Nagappa throw<\/p>\n
 hand–bomb. Due to the blast, Nagappa had sustained<\/p>\n
l bleeding injuries on his thighs. At that time, her uncle<\/p>\n
Sriramappa also sustained injuries by bomb. Srinivasa and<\/p>\n
Lakkappa have assaulted the people of complainant’s_side by<\/p>\n
cycle chain. Govindappa and Anjanappa <\/p>\n
injury by cycle chain. Dhanegowda has  <\/p>\n
by knife. Gopalappa also fell dovvh.  tell i’<\/p>\n
down, Munithayamma came _and assau1ted,o’n.the <\/p>\n
of Gopalappa by legs. Lalithai\ufb01ina alf1d.l&:SuVinithramma by
\nholding clubs have vassau1t_;ed_Ajnjanvappa and t}ov1’r1dappa.
\nBhagyamma assaulted  clubs on his head.<\/p>\n
Hence, all of   gl:oldin\u00a7’llclub_s:.fdin their hand have<\/p>\n
assaullted’-the  is dalsol\ufb02stated that at the time of
\nincident; .Sui1andanil1n_a’,t’—Sltzashikala, Bhagyamma, Renuka,
\nJayanthamiha yaIv1dAA~\\lei~”-Jziatamrna have also witnessed the<\/p>\n
   A ….. .. ‘V<\/p>\n
   the basis of the said complaint, the police<\/p>\n
have condticted investigation and filed charge sheet against<\/p>\n
 x the acciised. The accused were arrested and in View of the<\/p>\n
  lstatement of PW1 and other witnesses, the Accused Nos.13<\/p>\n
___and 14 were also added in the charge sheet with the aid of<\/p>\n
Section 109 of UPC.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6. A9 — Bhag\/amma being a juvenile,4,aVt~s’ep_arate<\/p>\n
charge~sheet was filed against her and A14 <\/p>\n
and A5 died during trial. Hence, Al to A4;i-;’X.t\u00a7::’to ‘Afs,4.A:o’ <\/p>\n
A13 faced the trial.\n<\/p>\n
7. The trial Court..:’framedV’ the charges<\/p>\n
against the accusedzj,<\/p>\n
A-1 to 8;   with absconding
\naccused__no.14_.an.d:=.A~;-9  “on 15.3.1995, at
\nabout~’1’EeAp:.f.\\’M, Eat Nallappanaha_lli, within the limits of
\nMaiuf themselves into an unlawful<\/p>\n
 assem’bly–,w._  object of which was to commit
\n“muu’rder’  s \/ 0 Gopalappa, Kenchappa s\/0
\n_ Gopalapp\u00e9lg. anud’~~-cause hurt to C.W.4 Aswathappa,
\n. it C.W.2\u00a7” V-V,evr__1__1ga,tamma, C.V\\\/.26 Bhagyamma, C.W.27
\nE””‘tCp}oyin,dappa, C.W.28 Srirama, C.W.29 Gopalappa due
\n  p”rop’e.rty dispute and thereby they committed an
\ndrfgene\u00e9 punishable under Sec. 143.\n<\/p>\n
  Secondly, on the aforesaid date, time and place
\n‘ub;eing the members of an unlawful assembly and in
\nprosecution of the common object of such assembly,
\naccused committed rioting, and at that time they were
\narmed with deadly weapons like, cycle chain, clubs,<\/p>\n
and dagger, which weapon if used as weapon of<\/p>\n
\/%–\n<\/p>\n
ll}<\/p>\n
offence likely to cause death, and thereby V~tl’i-ey’-shave<\/p>\n
committed an offence punishable  %<\/p>\n
Thirdly, on the aforesaid date, time lpiace,’<\/p>\n
the accused being the members *7:i;:~ .l’uril.awfull’; it<\/p>\n
assembly, and in prosecution ,oftl1el’comirion Chj\u00e9\u00e9gi’ of<\/p>\n
such assembly, Accuse_d–9 and i0 assaillteldzwiththeir<\/p>\n
hands to C.W.4 Aswathappa, A-4,’ 7* ..a_r1,dlllltllassaulted
\nwith hands and legs .g25_vVenkata,mma, and A–11
\nand 12 caused   C,g;W.29\u00bbCiopalappa by stamping
\nwith legs, and thelrebyjl  an offence
\npunishable.  w sec 49.\n<\/p>\n
 theaforesaidwsdate, time and place<\/p>\n
   of an unlawful assembly,<\/p>\n
[and inl\ufb01rosecution’ of the common object of such<\/p>\n
as.sembly*,– ..  VA-S voluntarily caused hurt to<\/p>\n
 Krisltnappa  clubs, A-1 voluntarily caused hurt to<\/p>\n
 .I\u00a71ishna15p’a—-~b~y” stabbing with a knife on his back, A-3<\/p>\n
.,Vv0lu,r_i’tai’ily caused hurt to Kenchappa s\/ o Gopalappa<\/p>\n
‘ ‘V-.l\u00a7y,,vgsta,bb’ing with a knife to his stomach, A-6 and A-8<\/p>\n
Voluntarily assaulted Kenchapa with cycle chains, A–3<\/p>\n
it .. yoluntarily caused hurt to CW4 Aswathappa with a
\nknife, A-9 and 10 Voluntarily caused hurt to C.W.4 by<\/p>\n
assaulting him with clubs, A-4, 7 and 10 voluntarily
\ncaused hurt to C.W.25 Venkatamma by assaulting her
\nwith clubs, A-3 voluntarily caused hurt to C.W.26
\nBhagramma with knife on her right hand and also
\ncaused hurt to C.W.27 Govindappa with the knife, and<\/p>\n
K’<\/p>\n
x?\n<\/p>\n
also caused hurt to C.W.29 Gopalappa by stabbing his
\nstomach, and A-2 voluntarily caused hu1’tt..to-__C;W.28<\/p>\n
Srirama, by Exploding a hand bomb, onlthe<\/p>\n
weapons which the accused used as wefapC,na.of offence’ <\/p>\n
likely to cause death, tl1’ere’by’_’;.tlhey hayeg <\/p>\n
con1mitted an offence puI}_isha.ble} unde_r”–sec.324=V:.irjw l’<\/p>\n
Sec. 149 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
Fifthly, accused_y’~b_eing.V’ the  ‘lof an<\/p>\n
unlawful assembly, andlllinil\u00e9ifosecutionlvof  common
\nobject of such i_a*s.seInxbly,VA “th’eyz’have caused grievous
\nhurt to Krishnappa  Kyeflehappa, both sons of<\/p>\n
Gopalappa, byas’sau.lting:’thern  clubs, and cycle<\/p>\n
 ‘stabbing  knife, and when they<\/p>\n
lgwere Vi;al{efn.A:to.:lV\u00a3alur Govt. Hospital, for treatment,<\/p>\n
Krishinappa when Kenchappa was taken to<\/p>\n
 Kolai’ ._vGoy’e1*nment Hospital for further better<\/p>\n
 _treatment”,’l1\u00abe~died, and that the accused committed<\/p>\n
_V:tl1eir:linu1*de1′, and thereby they have committed an<\/p>\n
it ‘v~o\ufb027epnc.e-plunishable under sec.302 r\/W Sec.149 .<\/p>\n
.  Sixthly, A–l3 along with A2 on the aforesaid<\/p>\n
, date, time and place, were in possession of country<\/p>\n
bomb, and supplied the same to the house of accused,<\/p>\n
without a valid permit or licence, illegally, and that
\nthereby they have committed an offence punishable
\nunder sec.3, 4 and 5 of the Indian Explosives
\nSubstance Act 1908.\n<\/p>\n
\/\/”l<\/p>\n
8. The prosecution in order to prov_efi’ts–.>.ca$e,:_.has<\/p>\n
examined 25 witnesses, got marked  <\/p>\n
also produced M0,]. to M0.  The:A4de.fencc.Ao\u00a3.tlie 5′<\/p>\n
being one of total denialrth\u00e9ey h\u00abaV_e*–got   <\/p>\n
Ex.Dl8 being portions of ‘lv’st:a’t’ement’\\  After
\nhearing the prosecution  the learned
\nSessions Judge was   prosecution has
\nfailed to its  v….IT.\u20acE\u00a3~isonab1e doubt and
\nacquitted’  leyeiled against them. Hence
\nthe 3’3tateVlt1.:2;’sv   revision petition is filed
\nbefore.  – PW} before police.\n<\/p>\n
. , 9. ” \u00a7V>W.1.fisA’t.-he.’ complainant — Rani. She has stated<\/p>\n
 V’  _ Vthe..CourtVa’s”per her version in the complaint that on<\/p>\n
5   (:4-.f’lVr:1c_\ufb01i.a:lent i.e., 15.3.95 at about 8.00 a.m., CW3O to<\/p>\n
 come to the village for measuring the house and<\/p>\n
1andsv.AAt about 10 to 11 am, they have come near the house<\/p>\n
 “Accused No.5 – Bachappa and started measuring the<\/p>\n
house. After completion of measuring the land of Accused<\/p>\n
No.5, they came near the house of the complainant. CW29<\/p>\n
Gopalappa is the grand father of PWI. When officials were<\/p>\n
measuring the house of the complainant, the  —<\/p>\n
Venkateshappa came near the scene _.a.n_ud”VV.go’oj:ec.ted “for <\/p>\n
measuring the house. At that time,    — 7<\/p>\n
deceased addressed Accused _No. 1 lanldtold tolwlhy he<\/p>\n
should object for measuringlV”el\ufb01the hous_e&l”sii1ce:’.their house
\nhad already been No.1  that since
\nthere is court case in  he is objecting to
\nmeasure the   surifey’\u00ab.ofiiciais,:fThereafter. her father
\nby the Accused No.1 and
\nasked  house. At that time, there
\nwas  ‘altercjationshbetween Accused No.1 and the
\ndeceased  On seeing the altercations, the<\/p>\n
Survey. of\ufb01cia1ls’vl–eft\u00ab’the scene of occurrence and left the<\/p>\n
‘  later, the Accused No.1 came along with<\/p>\n
*.Ac\u00a2us\u00e9d’l–“.1’*;\u00a7’s.2 to 12 near the place and the Accused No.1 —<\/p>\n
Venkateshappa took dagger and assaulted her father on his<\/p>\n
2  right “shoulder. Accused No.6 — Lakshmana brought cycle<\/p>\n
 chain and assaulted her father on his back. Thereafter. her<\/p>\n
father sustained bleeding injuries on the shoulder and fell<\/p>\n
down. At that time, the Accused No.6 assaulted her father by<\/p>\n
means of cycle chain on his back. ‘I’hereafter,.’_A’whieVi1,_her<\/p>\n
uncle by name Kenchappa was standingV__n’ear’h.erl.’ fa.th4er.””_._<\/p>\n
Accused No.3 — Dhanegowda assalulbteri  ti.<\/p>\n
stomach as a result intestine of Kenchappa.”_lha’s”comeeout<\/p>\n
and he fell down, at that
\nAccused No.7 — Shekar  Sumitramma
\nassaulted CW26 by  her back. The
\nAccused N  by knife on the
\nright for{:ain_:._V   injuries. Soon after,
\nCW25”   Govmdappa, cw29 –\n<\/p>\n
Gopalaptza,  has come to the scene of
\noccurrence. ‘Atl:v’thatu  the Accused No.2 Nagappa<\/p>\n
CW\u00e95″by~means of knife on her right shoulder.<\/p>\n
‘ ,.’l’h–e assaulted CW25 by means of club on her<\/p>\n
“thighs.A”llhe..Accused No.3 — Dhanegowda assaulted PW29<\/p>\n
Gopalappa by means of knife on his lower stomach and<\/p>\n
2 iclaused bleeding injuries. The Accused No.4 –~<\/p>\n
A”l\\\/lunishamappa assaulted CW29 by means of club on his two<\/p>\n
it “legs. Accused No.10 — Lalithamma and Accused No.12 —<\/p>\n
Munithayamma have kicked Gopalappa, her grand father on<\/p>\n
9-\n<\/p>\n
\/Q<\/p>\n
his back and thereafter, he fell down. The Accused No.3 —
\nDhanegowda assaulted CW4 ~\u00ab~ Aswathappa by means of
\nknife and caused bleeding injuries. Accused No.8 -~ Srinivisa<\/p>\n
assaulted CW4 — Aswathamma by means of cycle’*Vcfh.ai’n on<\/p>\n
his back. Accused No.5 Bachappa and <\/p>\n
Bhagyamma have assaulted CW4} by mea.nls’o’f:’clubsV’_’on  ~ by <\/p>\n
back.\n<\/p>\n
9. The Accused No.2–…;”P>l,aga;l.)pa. bomb by<\/p>\n
bitting the same by mouth throwntotzrards roadin infront of<\/p>\n
com}i.lainan.tl’s”lhouse”and, the same is exploded and the
\npieces ofithe sainellhas caused injuries to face, both eyes and<\/p>\n
hai;1ds,of lcom:_1jlaina.nt’s uncle CW28 — Ramappa. Alter<\/p>\n
  th”e.__bomb, the Accused No.2 was trying to escape<\/p>\n
 . 1’r”orn the~\u00ab.scer1e*”of occurrence and as he ran, he fell down in a<\/p>\n
drainage -eliannel and at that time, the bomb which was in<\/p>\n
 his pocket has also exploded and he has sustained injuries<\/p>\n
A’  thighs. The above witness is PW} before the Court.<\/p>\n
_.:This PWI has been thoroughly cross–examined by the<\/p>\n
defence and it has been elicited from the mouth of PW}. that<\/p>\n
there were Kong standing disputes between the;”d’eceas:ed;_.and<\/p>\n
accused side.\n<\/p>\n
10. PW3 — Ashwathappahiisidari ‘He is.<\/p>\n
has also spoken regarding the incident as narrate-‘d  <\/p>\n
Similarly PW5, pws and”‘1Vs.s:i\u00a7w7 by—  \u00ab”‘s\u00a3ifamappaV,
\nGovindappa and B’hagyarI”1rna’vs.:’:’ respectiyely’ are injured
\nwitnesses and they  the Court and
\nhave ciearly,  by the said
\naccused   ‘<\/p>\n
 these injured eyewitnesses, the
\nprosecution  ” PW2, PW4, PW8 and PW13.\n<\/p>\n
 theyltarei nottinjured, they are eyewitnesses regarding<\/p>\n
it jthje iricidentt PW2, PW4, PW8 and PW13 have also<\/p>\n
 ._ qCdaL\u20acgVvor1E’ca_1lyt,.attributed overt–acts in respect of Accused<\/p>\n
  in the same manner as deposed by the injured<\/p>\n
V   as witnesses PW3, pws, pws and PW7.\n<\/p>\n
12. So far as other witnesses are concerned who are<\/p>\n
examined in this case, PW20 — Dr. K. Srinivasan has<\/p>\n
examined the injured– PW6 — Govindappa and has found<\/p>\n
\\-\n<\/p>\n
simple injuries on his person. He has also exa:ninv.:\u00a5:d.. —<\/p>\n
Venkatamma and PW3 — Ashwathappa  <\/p>\n
CW29 — Gopalappa and PW?  antzliisssued ‘*<\/p>\n
wound certificates as per E”:;s_4.P1O\u00ab”to  <\/p>\n
the injuries sustained by theseliindiuredl PW2t)
\nas simple injuries. it it i V<\/p>\n
13. PWZO —  conducted
\nPM examinatilernron  as well as<\/p>\n
Keneha Ba and lhas is’s{1’e,d’ Post Mortem examination re orts<\/p>\n
marlged     EXP} 7.\n<\/p>\n
 ”  PWZO the death of the deceased —\n<\/p>\n
Krishnappal’is._V_Vhomieida1 and the death was as a result of<\/p>\n
 ‘ VpVxeriphera.lA’circulatory failure due to haemorrhage as a resuit<\/p>\n
 ._ of The death of deceased — Kenchappa is as<\/p>\n
r’esu1t._”of’shock, massive haemorrhage due to injury to vital<\/p>\n
 .. organik\ufb01idney.\n<\/p>\n
15. PW21 is the PSI who has recorded the statement<\/p>\n
of CW5 and CW29 when they were taking treatment in<\/p>\n
Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. PW22 — Ramappa is ASI. He<\/p>\n
has registered the case on receipt of complaint 1 at<\/p>\n
1.00 pm. on 15.03.1995 and transmitted\u00a7l.:f..lF’IF5\u00a7[jto<\/p>\n
jurisdictional Court. On receipt of the inforn1atio’_n thiatortel of . <\/p>\n
the injured died, he has requested t:hte..court to”‘ad’d:”tSec:i;ion<\/p>\n
302 IPC in the FIR which h\u00bbas…_alrealdyl?3een es’tih;hi.t\ufb01\u00a2c1″3thttht\u00a7th<\/p>\n
Court. He has recorded thelstatement’ l lwitnesses and
\nprepared the spot mahazar  .has._ the articles as per
\nEx.P2. He further handed   to the Inspector<\/p>\n
ofPo1ice.\n<\/p>\n
 16. — Alpl\ufb02-‘*s:~:~r1_p evidence on record the
\nlearned ‘Sessions  found that the evidence adduced<\/p>\n
by gtlie. prosecution  not sufficient to hold that the accused<\/p>\n
 \u00ab.1flave  the murder of Krishnappa and Kenchappa<\/p>\n
 ‘V artdx all the accused of all the offences charged<\/p>\n
a”gainsjt  Hence, this appeal by the State.<\/p>\n
 Heard Sri G. Bhavani Singh, learned SPP for the<\/p>\n
l’_llState and Sri AB. Patil, learned Senior counsel for the<\/p>\n
Flrespondents and Shri K.S.N.Kamath, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
Petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.61\/2004. ‘<\/p>\n
\/\/’-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18. The learned counsel for the respondents has
\nfiled an application U\/s.39l of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to
\nproduce additional documents and getting the same.-marked<\/p>\n
before the Court. He has submitted that the <\/p>\n
registered case against the prosecution witnessegs’ a<\/p>\n
case in Crime No.11?”\/1995 for offence  ‘ s. <\/p>\n
oi’ IPC for having caused injuries to_”t~he la~cc’u_sed: <\/p>\n
produced certified copy of t1ile”‘E..I.R. and  that!’<\/p>\n
four accused namely A3,  and ..A.2\u00ab.h_avei\u00a7 sustained<\/p>\n
injuries andeproiduced”around. -certificates of these accused.<\/p>\n
_ , Heard. Sri (3’j’l3haVani Singh, learned SPP on the<\/p>\n
,.\n<\/p>\n
   filed ‘by——tne learned counsel for the respondents<\/p>\n
C   since there is no objection for marking<\/p>\n
‘the’ said ‘diocr\ufb01rnients and admitting the material in evidence,<\/p>\n
the application filed U\/s.391 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the<\/p>\n
 ido’e.uments namely FIR in Crime No.112\/1995 and wound<\/p>\n
Ahcertificates of A2, A8. A4 and A5 are taken on record as<\/p>\n
evidence in this case.\n<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
20. Sri G.Bhavani Singh, learned SPP subinits.,_that<\/p>\n
in this case there is clear and cogent evidencef_:su}$porte\u20acl__byv<\/p>\n
all the witnesses namely PW}, PW2, PW3;”PW\u00a7},. :PW5._P\\\u00a7V6; , <\/p>\n
PW7, PW8 and PWIS who have=__ given flcllear ..picture,___o\u00a3 :_t}l1e l<\/p>\n
incident on hand. He has=’fu_rtl1er”Astibrnitted oil” <\/p>\n
Witnesses, PW3, PW5,  PW?’ jar’e  injured
\neyewitnesses and  Pi’)_li\/V2.3. ,APW_=i\u00ab,VlA”‘PW8 and PW}.3 are
\neyewitnesses to the incident.  out of the said<\/p>\n
Witnesses   are lno:t”re1a.ted to other Witnesses<\/p>\n
and     this, PW3 is also injured
\nwitness and tendered by these witnesses as<\/p>\n
aforesaidlc2ea1*lyVgoes_ to”\u00b0show that all these accused persons<\/p>\n
 ‘  _ li\u00e9lle  part ‘irrthe incident and have committed the acts<\/p>\n
V  persons of the deceased Krishnappa and<\/p>\n
:clHe further submitted that FIR itself contained<\/p>\n
an avergnent that A2 ~ Nagappa while running away from the<\/p>\n
 jsceane of occurrence fell down into drainage channel and<\/p>\n
ifthereafter, due to explosion of bomb in his pocket, he has<\/p>\n
suffered injuries. He submitted that under the
\ncircumstances though it is brought out that there was age<\/p>\n
vs<\/p>\n
\/X<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
old dispute regarding property, the incident  <\/p>\n
Therefore, the entire evidence may  into <\/p>\n
consideration for the purpose Iof  ‘resp’ondents~ ‘<\/p>\n
accused in the case. He submits the orderloi” acquittal,’<\/p>\n
passed by the learned Session.s:tTudge it is  iritaccordanee
\nwith law and is not    Under the
\ncircumstances,’ he ‘\u00abV3.CCused may be
\nconvicted aI1d:\u00ab\u00ab\u00a3.senter_1eed for which they<\/p>\n
stood chad  R” V. t It<\/p>\n
 2}_.– ‘i\u20aca1″anth, learned counsel for the
\ncomplainant in’–Crl.VA’F<..]E':'.,'1'\u00a7.o4.t31\/2004 submits that there is no<\/p>\n
discrepancy '"in__VVso fa\ufb01." as assault on PW8 is concerned. He<\/p>\n
  submitted that the evidence produced by PWZO<\/p>\n
 re-_garding_ injuries on the deceased persons are caused by<\/p>\n
cyc1e..chai1i. Therefore, under the circumstances, he submits<\/p>\n
 ., that "the order of acquittal deserves to be reversed and<\/p>\n
lb 'A.V_V'rcspondent may be convicted.<\/p>\n
22. On the other hand, Sri A.B.Pati1 has submitted<\/p>\n
the following points:-\n<\/p>\n
ll<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
There is absolutely no explanation regarding the
\ninjuries caused on the accused persons namely
\nA2, A3, A4 and A5. The prosecution is silent
\nregarding the manner in which the accused have
\nreceived injuries in the incident and<\/p>\n
indicate that the eyewitnesses are\u00a7”n’o’t\u00ab..speal\u00abfi\ufb01g<\/p>\n
truth absolutely. In View of the ~.o}d:.A_dif:f_eren<ceg <\/p>\n
between comp1ainant""'and {the jaccuseds, he '<\/p>\n
submitted that the ocularevidence::tcndei=ed7lby<\/p>\n
the prosecutiongdoes not Qualify \u00bb   ;\n<\/p>\n
In the light of the’-abo,ve, it is_sub.”inittvedVlthat the<\/p>\n
order passed by Atheijlowerp Court’ does-‘3 not suffer<\/p>\n
 accordingly, the appeal<\/p>\n
ma3’fL~’eV disVmi__s’se’d..\n<\/p>\n
g b He further lisubrnitted that in View of the evidence
\nit” ‘P’N2.2’-. “read with evidence of PW1 —
\n_ complainant and other evidence on record, it is<\/p>\n
 clear that there is improvement in the version of<\/p>\n
2 it PVV1 and other eyewitnesses in general so far as<\/p>\n
Bovert acts are concerned. He submitted that the<\/p>\n
Injury sustained by A2 -~ Nagappa has not been
\nproperly explained by the prosecution. He
\nfurther submitted that the complaint in Crime
\nNo.1l2\/ 2005 given by the accused person
\nindicates that four persons of accused side are
\ninjured. However, in View of their custody, they
\ncould not pursue<\/p>\n
‘B’~report. However, he<\/p>\n
w<\/p>\n
\/\/’I<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
submitted that the accused have<\/p>\n
suffered injuries. In View of the same, it\u00bb is <\/p>\n
argued that the prosecution come tout’ T<\/p>\n
with clean hands. He :_furthei=._stibmittedfthat<\/p>\n
near the scene of “*occurreI’1ee, though;<\/p>\n
prosecution cas’e.:.g.”s,tates *-that_”‘.=Kr’i.shnappa _.
\ndeceased has sujstained’–~heaVya ble.ed.ing injuries,
\nno other mentioned in the
\nspot mahazar    case of the<\/p>\n
prosecuti\u00a7o’n.:H’e s.ubi.:iii_tgted’f’that PW22 has mis<\/p>\n
 iead;jVit1rie*vCouI’t. byplroducing the entire material
\n1  o1_1V.\u00bb’_record_,Vl\u00e9jriiii”overall consideration of the<\/p>\n
 this_,H”h’e submits that the evidence<\/p>\n
  12 shows that A3 and A5 has<\/p>\n
\u00bbfirst– s’1″1s’tain’e.d’ injuries. Thereafter, the incident<\/p>\n
hjasiihapipened. Therefore, the prosecution has<\/p>\n
su}i5p1ess’ed very genesis of the incident. In this<\/p>\n
‘..:’i2’iew of the matter, he submitted that FIR itself<\/p>\n
indicates that there is verbal altercations before<\/p>\n
the injuries sustained by A2 and A3. In that<\/p>\n
view, he submitted that the order of acquittal
\npassed by the learned Sessions Judge does not
\ncall for interference and the appeal may be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
N<\/p>\n
\/X<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
23. Sri Patil, learned senior counsel in of his<\/p>\n
submissions has relied upon the following   –1- <\/p>\n
1. Ram Narain. Jaggar  ‘-others,
\nVs. The State of Punjab:;’reported_yiI\u00a51l  V<\/p>\n
1727 — Appreciation of eviLienceA’– injuries caused”by<\/p>\n
lethal weapons — prosecution evi.dence{_’in.c0nsistent’<\/p>\n
with medical evidencelkand that ‘of::ba:ll1st1c expert –<\/p>\n
accused are entitled t.o”be’a.cquitted.<\/p>\n
2. Soundarapandi state reported in
\n1933;crs~51;;J. 1199\u00bb: Eviden’ce.Act (1 of 1872), Section<\/p>\n
 of  ;–prosecution U\/s.302 of IPC —\n<\/p>\n
 injuries”.a1legedly’ca,used by aruval — medical evidence<\/p>\n
Atoutally in.corf1p1e=te_”wi’th oral testimony of eyewitness —<\/p>\n
_ medical officer very assertive in his view that injuries<\/p>\n
could It 1’I\u20ac{Y\u00a7’W_b\u20ac\u20acI1 caused only by any stabbing<\/p>\n
instiiument and not by weapon like aruval —<\/p>\n
  cannot obtained by calling some other<\/p>\n
more cornpetent and experience expert ~– held, evidence<\/p>\n
“of “eyewitnesses cannot be relied upon ~– accused was<\/p>\n
. “entitled to benefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
3. Appanna Yellawwa Madar and others Vs.
\nState reported in AIR 1956 —– Born 471 \u00ab– where the
\neyewitnesses for the prosecution though<\/p>\n
unsophisticated were found clever enough to make<\/p>\n
25<\/span><\/p>\n
improvements on the points whichgltthe\ufb01ijv–._thc:-ugh<\/p>\n
material. it is very serious infirmity  “inf Kat <\/p>\n
murder case and if such d.irec\u00bbt.4eviCIence’is’4 notvgrhollyt j<\/p>\n
satisfactory, the subsidiary Y”-th\ufb01<\/p>\n
prosecution relies, viz_., the discove.rv.of ‘ the axe},<\/p>\n
however suspicious, cannot cure ‘the’in:iZirrnr’pty.W<\/p>\n
4. snags: n?ird hili:i:azid*.rsaraa Vs. State of
\nMaharashtra repotrteztiifiivx  SC 1622 —
\nEvidencteiitiact   3 — interested
\n _evidenc1e;z  of ~ close relative of<\/p>\n
victim  ‘t\u20ac\ufb01d.ency”ittofgeiiaggerate or add facts —<\/p>\n
fcouit examine their evidence with great care<\/p>\n
7.an*c1’cau’t1oVn._ 2  V’<\/p>\n
   Singh and others etc., Vs.<\/p>\n
 ;p_S:tat_e oAiA’xBi–}:\u00abar reported in AIR 1976 SC 2263 —<\/p>\n
_rn\u00abu1’d:er case — non explanation of injury sustained by<\/p>\n
it  inference to be drawn.\n<\/p>\n
. In a murder case, the non–exp1anation of the<\/p>\n
.. injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of<\/p>\n
occurrence or in the course of altercations is a very
\nimportant circumstances from which the court can
\ndraw the following inferences:–\n<\/p>\n
(1} That the prosecution has<\/p>\n
suppressed the genesis and the origin of<\/p>\n
r-\n<\/p>\n
\/\/5<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
occurrence and has thus not pres.e_nte’d_’the <\/p>\n
Version;\n<\/p>\n
(2) That tl’1\u20ac:’\\7l’7A’l’lC1’1\u20ac-S$\u20ac’$  ‘denied if’<\/p>\n
the presence of inju’riesf”ori the A}:-erson’l_i”oflf’the<\/p>\n
accused are lying on theinost n1aterialV_p0ii’1t  ><\/p>\n
therefore their evidence is unrel’iab1e;\ufb027_<\/p>\n
(3)  . lcasf\ufb01p there~–.is\/Ia defence
\nVersion  ‘l._explair1s;~l  injuries on the
\npersons of   ‘rendered probable so<\/p>\n
as to throiw dQ1lV.bt’Qrj~,t_l1eV prosecution case.<\/p>\n
  siateksi’ iiafnaigaka Vs. Siddegowda and<\/p>\n
I’*o\u00a3herg;iv:;e\u00a7\u00a3g:%te_\u00a71~iii IL1\u00a7”i999 KAR 3373 M criminal<\/p>\n
:trial?– in ‘1nfu.rderhlcase__– severe injuries were found on<\/p>\n
three accuseaci} the-.prosecutior1 witnesses suppressing<\/p>\n
. this fac_t –‘~effect — held ~– unexplained severe injuries<\/p>\n
  this caso~——ori Vital part) on the person of accused<\/p>\n
_Woul.d”indicate that the genesis of the case has been<\/p>\n
 suppres-s.e’d.\n<\/p>\n
“V it 7. Rajendra Prasad Vs. State of Bihar
\nreported in 1977 Crl.L.J. 613 — When the trial Court.<\/p>\n
 with full View of witnesses acquits an accused after<\/p>\n
disbelieving direct testimony, it will be essential for the
\nHigh Court in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly
\nindicate firm and weighty grounds, from the record, for
\ndiscarding the reasons of trial Court in order to be able<\/p>\n
c\u00bb<\/p>\n
\/2<\/p>\n
to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt ofWthelp’a–c’c.us\u00abed.<\/p>\n
The High Court should be able to point <\/p>\n
judgment that the trial Court’s reasons:~are.:palpablyD’V.<\/p>\n
and unerringly shaky and fits.  -.reas.onsh are ‘<\/p>\n
demonstrably cogent as a  rule .VoI’~appre:c’iation<\/p>\n
of evidence, in an appeal agaisnt VacfC;_uitta\u00abl….yIt–*is not<\/p>\n
legally sufficient that just possible for the High
\nCourt to take contrarytvietvlablout creldilbility witnesses
\nbut it is absolutely  the High Court
\nconvincingly  Well  irnpossible for the trial<\/p>\n
Court ;to ifeiect fl’1\u20aci=i1′ testi’rn:on’y=. . . <\/p>\n
 llll  ”  :7’f’*’iari’?3ll’NaI\u00a3l.l.ill’Vitji and others Vs. State of
\n‘=._Gujai-at” i-\u00ab\u00a7p.\u00a7rtgai.::r1—-_A’iR 1970 so 219 —<\/p>\n
.{A) ‘Crirninai–_PLC(1898], sec.-<l23– Appreciation of<\/p>\n
. , evidlencle  appellate court – evidence of prosecution<\/p>\n
 j2vi'tness  'truth and falsehood not separable — entire<\/p>\n
_ evidence has to be rejected — decision of Gujarat High<\/p>\n
1 ~ Court  – . reversed.\n<\/p>\n
.  {l3} Penal Code (1860), Sections 149 and 34 and<\/p>\n
if ,  and 304 — free fight between two groups of<\/p>\n
persons — injuries sustained by persons of both groups
\nin course of such fight — death of two persons — only
\npersons found to have inflicted injuries can be
\nconvicted for the injuries caused by them.<\/p>\n
Where there was melee at the time of the<\/p>\n
incident and two groups indulged in a free fight<\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
resulting in injuries to persons of both:V~’groups’.I’alnd<\/p>\n
death of two, if the court comes to the <\/p>\n
the injuries sustained by _the.__perslons”*vvere’ in the<\/p>\n
course of a free \ufb01ght, then only.-those<\/p>\n
proved to have caused. injuries or death can be lhelnrp<\/p>\n
guilty for the offence individually  ll<\/p>\n
7. As Inentionedli’e.ar’lier boti1.:the_t;rial Court
\nand High Court have c–om\u00a7pA1Vete_iy_irejected the testimony
\nof PW6. Hence the -Ipros’ecutionV”case’_j.entire1y rests on
\nthe testimony   believed by the
\nin  irngjortantlllrespects. It came to<\/p>\n
the lconiclusiolne   “not truthful witness. It<\/p>\n
V.rdp’i1redii:thatf:.;his”\u00abversionhlasto the incident is grabled<\/p>\n
lone  ‘suppressed the part played by<\/p>\n
hirnplland ‘others  side. But yet the High Court<\/p>\n
— , evidently inh\ufb02uenced by the fact that two persons had<\/p>\n
 been killed vd1..1ring the incident undertook a salvaging<\/p>\n
_operat’i~–on in an attempt to fish out truth out of the<\/p>\n
if  .o-faialse evidence given by him. In doing so, it<\/p>\n
Went, ‘in search of some corroborative evidence.<\/p>\n
it , According to PW5, after the occurrence, he ran to the<\/p>\n
house of Kasalsingh, PWIO and informed him about<\/p>\n
the occurrence. The High Court thought that to the
\nextent the evidence of PW5 tallies with the information
\ngiven by him to Kasalsingh the same may be accepted
\nas true. But yet the High Court in many respects<\/p>\n
disbelieved the testimony of PW5 even it accorded with<\/p>\n
F”\n<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
the version given by him to PW10. It  <\/p>\n
conclusion that PW5 did not give a fu’ll..:and. it<\/p>\n
version of PWIO. In particuilanyit that.’_:whi1e<\/p>\n
informing Kasalsingh about incidentfi F*’i’fv_”<\/p>\n
deliberately suppressed the partllplayedi\u00e9y p\u00e9prsonsdii *’<\/p>\n
on his side. Having comehto the c.onc.l.u_sioi2, that right<\/p>\n
from the beginning  a”di.storted version
\nof the incident, not right in holding
\nthat any portion of .can be relied upon
\nmerely because   his testimony in
\n  the version’  by him to PW10.\n<\/p>\n
It is truie\ufb02thatl’  thelcourts have to separate<\/p>\n
ytthe ‘truth   where the two are so<\/p>\n
V:interrriing1ed..p:las\ufb01l’to:VV”make it impossible to separate<\/p>\n
them,\u00bbthe’v.evicl’ence_has to be rejected in its entirety.<\/p>\n
..,The ‘u’Higl1~.vCou1’ttw.over looked this well accepted<\/p>\n
 p_ri11ciple.V’Ifwe\u00ab ‘reject the evidence of PW5, as we think<\/p>\n
.we_sho–u_ld, the prosecution case must be held to be<\/p>\n
 unstibstvantiated because there is no other evidence to<\/p>\n
 it. Whatever other evidence was there, it has<\/p>\n
it .. been rejected by the trial Court as well as by the High<\/p>\n
Court as false. In this view, it is not necessary to go<\/p>\n
 into the question whether Kasalsingh’s evidence comes<\/p>\n
within the scope of Section 157 of the Evidence Act.<\/p>\n
V’<\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
9. Akojam Ranbir singh_;V~~~~-vs.\n<\/p>\n
Government of Manipur reported  V’ <\/p>\n
2191- ,8–_ c M .q __ \ufb02
\n(A) Criminal P.C. (1898),-~As.\u00e9ctia;1-4’23’:l[flapp;a1<\/p>\n
against acquittal —- finding of acquittal  on ‘proper -‘<\/p>\n
appreciation of evidence.f5″hqigh co1irt\u00abjks:’:1olt:vjustilt”ied <\/p>\n
interfering with finding…cifimi11.a1 appea,1″ca.se No.2 of
\n1968, D\/- 11~3–A–1._9f71 Reversed.<\/p>\n
Whether the  of  by the Sessions
\nJudge ‘phased “appreciation of the
\nevidence =t:he  is not justified in<\/p>\n
setting–i:_it;.’_ aside._V’l’aipid convicting the accused even<\/p>\n
V’tho’ughif,twoffdifferent conclusions are possible on the<\/p>\n
basis of ‘t1fie.g4ltma’terial on record and the evidence is<\/p>\n
sufficient”i– to} create some suspicion about the<\/p>\n
comp’liC:ityV..of  accused in the crime. Criminal
\n Appeal Case——110.2 of 1968, o\/- 11~3~\u00ab1971 [Manipur),<\/p>\n
_Revers’ec_1.\n<\/p>\n
  Swaran Singh and others Vs. State of
\ni.==urij\u00a7ibV reported in AIR 1976 so 2304 \u00bb
\n (A) Criminal PC. (1898), Section 423 W Appeal
\nagainst acquittal —- Finding of fact — Interference with —
\nPerrnissibility.\n<\/p>\n
The law only requires that the Appellate Court,
\nin reversing the order of acquittal, should be slow and<\/p>\n
circumspect to disturb a finding of fact, but if it is of<\/p>\n
,.\n<\/p>\n
31<\/span><\/p>\n
the opinion that the \ufb01nding of fact is W_rj’o’ngf <\/p>\n
borne out by the evidence there is no limitation” on  V’<\/p>\n
power to interfere with the order’ of   974x ‘<\/p>\n
SC 606, Rel. On.\n<\/p>\n
Held that the view taken byV”Add;:ti\u00a25n\u00a2urg<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge was p’erve_rse and against the<\/p>\n
weight of the evidence le.dlllbj,I_t’l1e prosecution, and that
\nthe High Court  entire evidence,
\nhas given due regard tloltllie of slowness in
\ndisturbing ..a   and after having
\nconsidereddthe~.sanle_:.ha.sl  the conclusion that<\/p>\n
no otherviewvrasptissible on the evidence.<\/p>\n
‘.vv24.__ . Al3cfor_e”‘a.pp\u00abre’ci.ation of the evidence in this case,<\/p>\n
the following plointslare rnind:-\n<\/p>\n
‘V 1″; .__l'”ln C’ an appeal against acquittal, the<\/p>\n
 L\ufb01xppellate W Court would be slow in reversing the<\/p>\n
   of the trial Court unless miscarriage of<\/p>\n
r  thereby ensued.\n<\/p>\n
 The Appellate Court would not interfere<\/p>\n
”  the order of acquittal even if based on the<\/p>\n
evidence on record two views are possible and the view
\ntaken by the trial Court is equally plausible.<\/p>\n
3. If the Appellate Court finds that the
\nappreciation of evidence by the trail court is Without<\/p>\n
evidence or capricious or against the interest of<\/p>\n
32<\/span><\/p>\n
justice, then only the appellate Court woux1g_.l.o<\/p>\n
reverse the order of acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
4. If after reappreciation of’the\u00ab.evidenc–e, the’ <\/p>\n
Appellate Court independently_:pf1r1ds of<\/p>\n
acquittal is not in accordaancepxwith’ law <\/p>\n
conclusion arrived at “the trial VCourrt.Va19e”not ‘based. ‘<\/p>\n
on correct appreciation oi’=\u00abthe_evicl’ei1cel on record, and
\nthe incident carihat be? the guilt
\nof the accused  isa..tiotall’virrinconisistent with the
\ninnocence. of   cases only the
\nAppellate’Alflourfwduld  order of acquittal.<\/p>\n
Having se’ttljedV”‘principples of law in mind, we<\/p>\n
V’\\Xrou1d.Vl\u00a3ke  reconsider thevevidence on record.<\/p>\n
 ‘ PW’1f’j–\u00bb”the complainant. The incident had<\/p>\n
happenedabctweenlllll”  l2 p.rn. on 15.03.1995 and the<\/p>\n
corriplvainant haspreaclied the Malur Police Station at about<\/p>\n
.A  distance between the police station and the<\/p>\n
 ~court  krns. When we see the contents of the FIR it<\/p>\n
is lseenii that the complainant —- PWI has named all the<\/p>\n
 ‘persons i.e., A1 to A12 in complaint and also attributed<\/p>\n
“I.sp’e’cific overt acts against the accused. The said FIR has<\/p>\n
it ” “been registered at about 1.30 p.m. by the police and<\/p>\n
dispatched the same at 2.15 pm. and the learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
33<\/span><\/p>\n
has received the same at about 2.30 pm. Havingjiiegacrdavp\u00e9to<\/p>\n
these facts, we are of the firm opinion <\/p>\n
absolutely no delay in registering; the4coniplaintj;v\u00bbblefore  <\/p>\n
police station by the complainant-,and’ialso’\u00bbtrans;niss’ionVof<\/p>\n
FIR to the Court. The ver::’io’n__ of  in f’E\u00a7ll{.:._’specilically<I'<\/p>\n
mentions the presence of lethal weapfolns. band? also the
\npresence of explosive Vsublstaificesy hands of the A2. It is
\nalso specifically.averre_dw–in the that while running<\/p>\n
away from Hthe f3'Ce_11e"0f1Off\u20acIl(fE;.V\ufb02lelm\u00e9fiplosiv\ufb01 substances<\/p>\n
found~in"the;possessioli1.ofA2feXp1oded as he fell down to the
\ndrain and   The evidence of all the injured<\/p>\n
witnesseslnamely  PW6 and PW?' also speci\ufb01cally<\/p>\n
  states  _povert"'acts..by each of the accused. It is also seen<\/p>\n
 '    PW8 and PWl3 are also eyewitnesses to the<\/p>\n
'1i1ci*dentL f\u00ab.1"ij'hle_9a1'Vevidence tendered by the injured witnesses<\/p>\n
 cannotvlbehlightly brushed aside.\n<\/p>\n
 26. At this stage, we would like to note that no<\/p>\n
   _Vv_Mwh\u20acre in the prosecution evidence, it has been brought out<\/p>\n
that any of the injured witnesses were armed with any<\/p>\n
weapons at the time of the offence. On the other hand the<\/p>\n
2-\n<\/p>\n
34<\/span><\/p>\n
possession of weapons of various description inc3uding__’DLa1_{u.<\/p>\n
chaku, sticks and cycle chains etc., have ..beer..1_ speciiicaiiywp <\/p>\n
mentioned by at} the witnesses. Unde_rH’thVe”s_e ‘circ_uir1stanc_es,<\/p>\n
we are of the firm opinion that the persons  in the” op<\/p>\n
have taken part in the inciden’t*o:n~the date of the\ufb02offence and<\/p>\n
have caused death o’i’~~..two_\u00ab”hperhssoiis’hand injtiries on four<\/p>\n
persons.\n<\/p>\n
27.  regard   nhature of the injuries and<\/p>\n
the opinihn   has conducted the PM<\/p>\n
exaniivnaticriivep iof’thevv..opinion that the death of deceased
\nKrishnappa and  is homicidai in nature.<\/p>\n
Therefore, tWe..haVe’ no hesitation to the come to the<\/p>\n
 “that the death of both the persons and aiso the<\/p>\n
 p   PW5, PW6 and PW? are the direct result of<\/p>\n
the acts  the accused and hence, they are liable for the<\/p>\n
 .A said offences.\n<\/p>\n
28. So far as the non–exp1anation of the injuries<\/p>\n
.:%caused on the accused is concerned, the FIR itself speaks of<\/p>\n
injury on Accused No.2 — Nagappa. So far as the other<\/p>\n
t~<\/p>\n
\/\/’g<\/p>\n
35<\/span><\/p>\n
injuries on other persons is concerned, the police..hf:1ve’fi1ed a<\/p>\n
‘B’–report, which has not been persued by   it <\/p>\n
hence the Magistrate has accepted the saIne,:’l*IenVce;” the<\/p>\n
accused cannot now urge the said Contention  this stage in.’<\/p>\n
this appeal. Even 0therWjSe”–.’.,fii8, alleged’  other<\/p>\n
accused could be due top_bI11shin*g.:’of vwsaponsvvof the accused<\/p>\n
themselves inter se i and   jnot erode the<\/p>\n
trustworthiness _the\u00a7;’prosecution’_witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
29. 1  far   offences committed by
\nthe  is mentioned in the FIR by PW}<\/p>\n
that immediateiyafter buwey Officers left the scene of<\/p>\n
occ:tiI’1’ence,d  accused had verbal quarrel with the<\/p>\n
  ffrishnappa. Despite the fact that the accused were<\/p>\n
  vveapons and the deceased party was un–armed,<\/p>\n
in’~view\u00b0of quarrel with regard to the property and also in<\/p>\n
 view of the fact that there were age old enmity between the<\/p>\n
it ‘A._a’ccused persons and the deceased and their family<\/p>\n
xlmembers; the offence committed by A1 and A3 cannot be<\/p>\n
said to be done with an intention to caused death of the<\/p>\n
deceased. Under the circumstances, though no motive can<\/p>\n
\/\/”T<\/p>\n
36<\/span><\/p>\n
be attributed to the accused persons, the very natrl.ire_’__of’ the<\/p>\n
weapons used by A1 and A3 and also  <\/p>\n
explosive used by the A2, it couldjbe  \ufb01vglli  tliat <\/p>\n
had the knowledge that the;a_ct would be ca}-.isin’gd’deijith~ of<\/p>\n
Krishnappa and Kenchappa.  these.circ-“umstances, We
\nare of the opinion thatijjthpe   the accused
\nwould fall U\/s.3o4 Partal’-loll  the offence of
\ncausing injuries,  PW7. However,
\nthough thiereufs use of explosives by A2,
\nthe   charge sheet against A1 to A12
\nunderlKthe.l_  Substances Act. Hence, they<\/p>\n
cannot beheld ,gui1ty_tlof~.–the said offences. It is noticed that<\/p>\n
 th’e’3″\u00a2.charge u\ufb01de1–~..s~.\u00abe Indian Explosive Substances Act is<\/p>\n
‘ .ro[ad.e””against A13 and A14. A14 is absconding and is<\/p>\n
.’n.ot’befor’ef Court in this case. Hence, we are inclined to<\/p>\n
grant the bene\ufb01t of doubt to A13, since, his name does not<\/p>\n
1’ l\ufb02f ifigure in the complaint lodged by PW1.<\/p>\n
30. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that<\/p>\n
A the appeal filed by the State deserves to be allowed.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, A1 to A4 and A6 to A8, A10 to A12<\/p>\n
h-\n<\/p>\n
37<\/span><\/p>\n
{Respondents Nos.1 to 10] are convicted for the”-.o;ffe’nce<\/p>\n
punishable U\/s.304 Part–I r\/w sec. 149 <\/p>\n
convicted for the offence U\/s.324v;*\/”w.—-Secf:14tQll  ‘ if<\/p>\n
the facts and circumstances of the casefwhere’ two lixfes are<\/p>\n
lost in the incident, we areof the opinion _that l’t3ie”’sentenceV ‘<\/p>\n
of seven years of rigorous pAi.mp1Z”i\u00absonment”would meet the
\nends of justice for  r\/w Sec.149 of
\nIPC. So far as” VoffencVe”‘U::\/:ViSec.149 of IPC is<\/p>\n
conce:med,\u00ab–Vwe 2Li_r_e;’.o’f th_&e” opiniojii that the sentence of one<\/p>\n
yearpvrigo1’o1i:s irn:prisoi1ernentf’Wit’hV’ fine of Rs.5,000\/– would<\/p>\n
meett’hele_nds_ of the following
\n‘ ” ” ‘ –  ORDER<\/p>\n
 ” The appeialvlis allowed in part. The Respondents No.1<\/p>\n
if  .    A6 to A8, A10 to A12 before the trial Court} are<\/p>\n
  fo’rv.*:the offence punishable U\/s.304 Part-I r\/W<\/p>\n
Se-c.1.\/$9’  lPC and sentenced to suffer RE. for a period of<\/p>\n
 .. sevengfears each.\n<\/p>\n
Further they are sentenced to suffer R1. for a period of<\/p>\n
one year and pay fine of Rs.5000\/–. in default to suffer SI.<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
\/\/5′<\/p>\n
38<\/span><\/p>\n
for a period of three months for the offence punishable
\nU\/5.324 r\/W Sec.149 of IPC. Both the sentence_s:es\u00a31–a1E;.e’run<\/p>\n
concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
The respondents are directedm to su’rrend_er’._’oef’ore the<\/p>\n
trial court and serve the sentence\ufb02as”–herein’before or_iiered_.V<\/p>\n
in the event of their failure  so,” it ‘that the<\/p>\n
trial court sha\ufb01 execute the_The\ufb01bai\u00a3 bonds of the<\/p>\n
respondents stand canceiiecii e. _  V <\/p>\n
v.\u00bb’q”Eie~gr;”1erkt\u00a7f”‘aeqtfittaiAo’f”Respondent No.11 {Accused<\/p>\n
No.19;”bei7ore theijtrial’ is gton\ufb01rmed.\n<\/p>\n
          .  sa\/-.\n<\/p>\n
Judge<\/p>\n
 Sd\/’
\nJudge<\/p>\n
V ” ..  NM\/Gps*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court State By Malur Police vs Venkateshappa on 21 September, 2010 Author: K.Sreedhar Rao B.V.Pinto CRL.A. NO. 468 OF 2oo4:~ E PRESENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 14′?” DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.sREEDHARjR2$_O_:”‘\u00ab,VA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE 3.:\/;”PI$I?frj””\u00bb CRL.A. NO. 468 oF”2e7o4\u00b0-.t […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34227","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState By Malur Police vs Venkateshappa on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State By Malur Police vs Venkateshappa on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-19T10:38:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State By Malur Police vs Venkateshappa on 21 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-19T10:38:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":6704,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010\",\"name\":\"State By Malur Police vs Venkateshappa on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-19T10:38:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State By Malur Police vs Venkateshappa on 21 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State By Malur Police vs Venkateshappa on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State By Malur Police vs Venkateshappa on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-19T10:38:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State By Malur Police vs Venkateshappa on 21 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-19T10:38:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010"},"wordCount":6704,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010","name":"State By Malur Police vs Venkateshappa on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-19T10:38:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-malur-police-vs-venkateshappa-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State By Malur Police vs Venkateshappa on 21 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34227","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34227"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34227\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34227"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34227"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34227"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}