C T Venkatesha vs State Of Karnataka By Bannur Police on 12 August, 2010

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

C T Venkatesha vs State Of Karnataka By Bannur Police on 12 August, 2010

Bench: N.Ananda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12*" DAY OF AUGUST 
BEFORE Q   I I A
THE E-ION'BLE MR.3uST_ICE_N. ANANOA '\'S::: 
CRIMINAL APPEAL  I   I

BETWEEN:

C T VENKATESHA

S/O THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.----_ « -- 
RESEDING AT CHICKKAM/XI.LIG_E    "
KOPPALU,KIRGAVAL HOBLE" ' C' '
MALAVALLI TALUK ' A --   

MANDYA DIST  __ I  _  --   APPELLANT
(BY SRI:HAS|¥iA'F?i.-PASHA, ADV) "    

STATEOF.KA*R_NAT*AI<A  
BY BAANNuRC'RG!.,:CE:.¢ "
MYSORE DIST. " __ = 
REP BYVS PP - I =    ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP)

 "CRL.A I3_ FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C. AGAINST THE
3L5D*GN;ENT.L'DATED'32--3--;1O.2oo3 PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS

 JODGE; j MYSORE IN SC NO.244/1996, CONVICTING THE
 ' ARRELL.ANT_S.--AGCuSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 RM
 SEC 34 'OF I.PC~AND UNDER SECTIONS 3, 25, 28 OF INDIAN

ARMS ACTXAND SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO R I FOR 3

YEARS AND}'TO PAY OF FINE OF RS.1000/- IN DEFAULT TO-

UNDERGO S I FOR 3 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307

 IPC, SI FOR 6 MONTHS AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.500/- IN

DEFAULT TO UNDERGO S I FOR 3 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE

 R/_u/S 25 OF THE ARMS ACT AND S I FOR ONE YEAR AND TO
"PAY'A FINE OF RS.5oo/- IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO S I FOR 3

MONTHS FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 27 OF THE ARMS ACT, THE

  -I-'SUBSTANTIVE SENTENCE SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.



THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 5 

JUDGMENT

The appellant arrayed as_accused'"Noi.:i::was'_".tréeVd"» with accused No.2 for an offenceigpun'ish'al5le_1 307 read with 34 of 1pc aﬁ¢d"'aFcused'¢:ll051".l'Vé..:$:'*a.lso'5 trrEediE* for offences punishable undeVrwSectio_ns of the Indian Arms Act on th'e.V:flie Judge, Mysore in sc No.244/1995. Thelearn-ed,_S'es_sVi.o'nvs'"Judge acquitted accused and convicted accusedMNEOVJ57-fora::v_offe'nce:s' under Sections 307 of IPC.j'an_d.'offe'nceAs~under.._Sections 3, 25 and 27 of Indian Arms accused No.1 is before this Court."

.."In;Vb«rief, the case of prosecution is as follows:

No.1 - C T Venkatesha was an Ex~Service X_man the was a resident of Chikkamallgekoppalu, A5_"'l»<iiVru'gavalu Hobli, Malavalli Taluk. Accused No.2 - Rangaswamy was also from the same village and he was M (£1 w>,._ar,,.

an associate of accused No.1. At the relevant time,' PWs.1 to 3 namely Shobha, Geetha and Nirmala ,wVere'-..the students of Mallikarjuna High School at accused used to follow and tease --'.'Geeitha.'V"":Th.at 29.06.1995, accused had follolwed:,'_"lll\siVl'.'».;{,--

others who were going to islchogol Geetha and others informed:Vj'_l:t_h.e_ teachers namely 5 Chamaiah and 5). Accused No.1 was standing ngmlafipevttylly_s:ho.pDlocated opposite to the school." teachers including PWs.4 'No.1 and reprimanded him, 'No.1 challenged them and left that placer at about 5.00 p.m., accused No..1' alrongwlth.._accus:ed No.2 came on a motor cycle and they vy:e..re.%:sta,nding near the petty shop. When PWs.4 and Taoitit 'o'f"Vthe school after the school hours, accused No.1 threatened to shoot them by pointing out a pistol. P\N_§ -Gopi apprehending danger to the lives of PWs.4 and "tried to snatch the pistol from the hands of accused '"l\lo.1. At that time, accused No.1 fired a shot from his pg ii M - 5}"'*"'J\* pistol, which caused injury to the left loin of PW6 75 Gopi. PWs.4, 5 and other public persons imvm.ediat.eiy apprehended the accused and he was police. The injured was shifted__to_hosp'ita'I".*:'_';v19h'evipoii-cel'r seized the pistol and a draggeVr~:.&fro_ni~iwthle. accused. The pistol was sent'*---for ex-an':En_ati.oAn{_jto»».B.allistic-l Expert. After completion of in\rRe'stiga_tion. c'ha_rge:%heet was ' filed against the accuVs"ed"for*.t_he'aforestated offences.

3. The§A..§qi_earned man the following charges:

C..T.VeVni<a'teshaf;-i.S,r'o.Thimmegowda, 342 Years, 'vokkaliga, Chikkamali--

_ gél<oVppal,u, iiiriigavalu Hobli, " Mala"va_liAi Tq., Mandya District. ..R.aci\-i.o Operator in Military,

- _ i~i.obile--..Signai Regiment, C/0.56 ."i=\.,PB.§/Army Post, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, .Ari.dic'516"' Batallion, Badge No.1151416. ':.Rangaswamy, S/o.Subbegowda, aged About 32 Years, Vokkaliga, Chikka--

Maligekoppalu, Kirugavalu Hobii, Maiavalli Tq., Mandya District.

55 ''=.._of the Court of Sessions."

That you, A.1 and A.2 on 29.06.1995, at 05.00 p.m. near the Schooi at Turugan,,ur,4""c._' came in a motor cycie bearing Regis,trationt:"'.;'T No..CRM.4761 and in furtherance of intention, pointed out the_,k.nife _V pistol and threatened C\A{.1,..Ch»anaa'ia,h'"- cw.3 K.Gopaia, with. dire V4consequenC.es andf when CW.2 Gopi obstruct~ed th'e._sai~d,:act',»J§io'u'V' A.1 C.T.Venkate_sha firedV'f'a,__gu_n sho'ta_t and the same;._,_."i'fi«it _ with such intention or knowied'ge such circumstances, death of CW.2_.. hja\)e:'i3Veen guiity of murder ther.e'o:y hiaiie committed an ,offén'c:§'oLv;,9uﬁi;na tjie,jiiundékéec.307 r/w 34 IPC and' within' co,§}'niiance.

uSe.cond'iy,.'V'on the said date, time and p,i~acevi,,.youVA';'1"'C.T.Venkatesha was holding a ..,cvQ4untry:""".pistol without a valid iicence and have committed an offence punisyhaible under sections 3, 25, 27 and 28 of the: Indian Arms Act and within the cognizance ,, c,ce4c

4. I have heard Sri.Hasmath Pasha, learned Counsel appearing for the accused and Sri.Vijvafyl-tnmar Majage, iearned High Court Government State and I have gone throughgevidence"*~aiid'V""findir:igs"". recorded by the learned Trial Judge. if A

5. Sri.i-lasmath Pa:;ha.._.__.leaVrne'd Cou*nseil_Ia.ppearing:V:S' for accused referring to evide_nce:__of_proseeutioniwitnesses and" findings recordedipigygt-hhegiear'-nerij'Triai Judge wouid submit that PVV6. ff Gopi' accused. He had on record does not shot from his pistol.

In fact, tléefin 5a working condition. In the circumstances,' Sessions 3udge was not justified. in 'co_Vn\ricting the accused for an offence ii_nishV:at>leVi:4under Section 307 of IPC. As per the opinion of the pistol was not in a working condition and noifbuffilet had been discharged from the pistol. it Therefore, an offence under Section 3 of the Indian Arms if "Act is not attracted. gm ,

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that accused was caught red han;de_d-..xby PWs.4 to 6 and other public. He was in country made pistol without licence.__ AcciJsed:'_'ha'dV f_ir.ed.la'V shot at PW6 and he had suffered The intention of the accused..__was*toV: co'nim'it.i._:muVrderVoft"

PWs.4 and S by using the fired a shot from his pistol"*~....and'é--V.gca.used--Vf:i.nju_ry to PW6. The evidence adduced by,t'h'e:.-p'rosecu_tVion not suffer from anv discrepa§'n§ii§$:-_'--;'_ Th?._é;v§;:w1itVﬂ€§$és""i'nciuding the injured implicate the accused.

The alongwith firearm and a dragger proof in respect of the acts conjgmitited by accused. Therefore, iearned Sessions :'Wa:§i.._Vjﬂustified in convicting the accused and him" for offences punishable under Section 307 of'i'PC aha and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. V 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for parties with reference to evidence on record and findings recorded 'x,_ .»».e€,\.

by the iearned Sessions Judge, I formulate the following points for determination:

i) Whether the prosecution««jita's--«W'-._ proved that on 29.06.1995 at abo:§it"S'§{l;€,?!:

p.m. accused fired a shot against PW6 - Gopij'and"ca_u'sed« to him and by such act, ifihe haaA%i'ca_us'e»ai['-.:°f7A the death of Pwe, he"'ttomt1 hia'Ve.j.'b.een_.'3 held guilty of 'an.:._V'i'offence--. Ipuvnisfhgable under s'ec_tion.~al'W éfvthéreby committecl' an ble under section 3Q.7"Il't'.C? if ' 'V ':_:'\{_l/ll1eth.er?ft'the accusecl being in _' if po3se:ssionL'c'f_' :_in_iicensed country pistol conirnijtted«.__A'fa»h offence under Section "»._25(1){b)(¢)t.o'f Indian Arms Act?

"i'i'i')' 'V Whether the impugned :V"vl._'i:Uclgment calls for interference?

iv) What Order?

it PW1 - Shobha has not supported the entire ' case of prosecution. However, during cross examination, w.c§»---¢a«~.Ja.

10 she has admitted that accused No.1 hails from Chikkamaligekoppalu, Kirugavalu Hobli, Maiavalli Taluk. She knew the accused when he was following her and other giri students. She has admitted that to follow her till she reached her school. that on 29.06.1995 cw9 and.'her'se«lf_ weeeeiting fer arrivai of CW? from the village and a'ccused',;No.'»1 them and talked to them. Aft:e:"r~arrE\./a'l'~ ertw7'iielliret them' left for school. Accused No.1 them"'b'§r shouting "their buttocks were 'arid?' a.lso- pockets were nice". Accuset'.%«..l§,é,1c:.1 invtted th.e'r'n{_for__a,f'joily ride. At that timefg_on._e-- of"*"the,,"viTfl'a.gj:evrs ' advised accused No.1 not to tease them. vSh*e_ that when she reached the scVh_io'oE,tr.accused,V:hadicome near the petty shop. During . 'iU.f1CF'1_vbil'iI§e«f'l./E!l, when she was going to the house, accused ,,aVt_f;'ai«n Then, she informed all these facts to her teiache-«rs namely PWs.4 and S. Later on, the said teachers V ".'3Gi.'i_t words to accused through CW10. Accused No.1 came 7nea'r them and toid them he will not leave the teachers, so i V' '"say'rng, he left that place on his motor cycle. N .e£ee»~eJe~ --

9. During cross--examination of PW1, nothing was elicited to discredit her evidence. I do notVV.fin:d._¢_any reasons to suspect evidence of PW1. PW1 was studying in 9"' standard at Mallikarjuna _.i=:--ig--Ah:~S:ChooiA, did not have any motive to falsely:.imbli4cat£e.'t--he'= and invite unwarranted complications to heﬁidr

10. The evidence o.f""P--W_'2ll?»-i._.Geeth'a~i and PW3 -- Nirmala would lend sdbs_t'ant.ia'i to evidence of PW1.

aitwere cross--examined by the learned. Counsel':for_:defen:ce, nothing has been suggested to them to Vvshow Athatbwthey were interested in falsely inv€rb'§~ic;;.§ingA.theHa'c'c'u'sed. Above all, PWs.2 and 3 being be least disposed to falsely implicate .a;cUsed,"'i:.?§:cused did not have legitimate business to go nearthe school.

i 11. At the relevant time, PW4 - Chamaiah was it " "working as a teacher in Mallikarjuna High School at [us 13 Accused No.1 told that he would finish them. The students of the school and also members of the public had gathered there. PW6 -~ Gopi attempted to snatch a pistol from the hands of accused No.1. Accused No.1 e><tricatecl_1'ftorntlhe clutches of Gopi and fired a shot from his pistol' hit PW6 -Gopi. The members of».

accused No.1 and collected pistol:;1igl<ni§"fQ.._"' away from the place. TheyV.t:o'al_< seizeediile weapons to police station aVAndVVV.hga_nd~ed oyeaaccused No.1 and weapons to information as per Ex.P1.

:'<DuringVeiosséieicatriination, PW4 has re--iterated the version given, in .e$<ami.ri.ation--in--chief. PW4 has asserted

- apai:.t'Vvfr~om Px\lVsv.3.V___tog,3 many other girl students had also » ;cornp£.ai'ned:eag_ainst the accused that he was teasing them. he crosseeekamination, PW4 has deposed that after the sch"ool""Vho'urs at 5.00 p.m. he came near the shop which is "opposite to school, by that time, there was a crowd.

"accused had no legitimate business near the school. PW4 «xv . £>x-c[4\.* 14 has deposed that he does not know that one Deversegowda was making efforts to perform m_avr,irji'a_:c_;fe_vof PW2 - Geetha with accused and in that has told accused No.1 to come nearthe sc'ho'oi.f , '

12. PW4 was working as at__te'a_cher. 'iv_Accuse'd:.".NoV.'1..VL was stranger to him. He enernity'VragairigtfacfcusedfV No.1. The evidence"'o_f PW"-4' suff'er'"from any discrepancy.

13. rei«e\€ra_Tnt - Gopala was workingy__as;.Qh-y§.i§§iifédu'ca'ti'o.n::vVtea%:her in Maliikarjuna High Schoo{ at rt5g.ga.nuQ.r.1..ifpwa1has not fuiiy supported the case of Drosecut'ion'..A' »-- 1 Qurirnyg cross""ex'amination, he admits that he had not 'sefen. "No.1 hoiding pistoi pointing towards PW4 a'i1_d'%others.-__ ':i-Ie had seen accused No.1 hoiding pistol and knife" PW6 tried to snatch the pistoi and accused No.1 fired' a shot from pistol and PW6 sustained an injury. N og.._.....1 15

14. Though PW5 has not completely supported the case of prosecution, his evidence regarding the of accused near the place of occurrence does any qgscrepancy. . V. M ii

15. PW6 -- Gopi was the i:n]'ur'.,edi~.i"

that at the time of occurrence,..V'he"

petty shop. He was eating V,groun_din_uts,.' time, he saw PWs.4 and 5 cording. .:'s;ch_ooi and accused Nos.1 and 2 we'i'e__standing:tnearr:'Vt.h'e.vpetty'shop. They had come on ..,He--..'hi=:ardaccused Nos.1 and 2 talking" 5. '.."VVT'hley were making galata. Accused 'No.1 .-a pistol and a knife. Accused No._1_ triedl4"tio_:ﬁre,'at AP.Ws"§'»V4 and 5. PW6 tried to snatch the pi'stol,:,_,--accvu,sedxl\lo";';i;'fired a shot from his pistoi which hit Accused No.1 was apprehended. PW6 a'i1_dV%oth.er's'i--,had gone to the poiice station, PW6 was sent to Gove'i'ri_riient Hospital at T.Narasipura. At the time of occurrence, he was wearing strip shirt and it had burnt. (\_: .

16 marks. The police had seized the shirt. He has identified the same as M04 before the Court.

During cross---examination, PW6 has was at the distance of 15 feetiitroni the nyf Boregowda at the time of occurre.nce,ﬁ Nos.1 and 2 from a distanc'e:of.15.v.feet_'fromhtvheiiisichooi.V PW6 had seen PWs.4"'a.nA'd with"a'cc'u:sed No.1. PW6 apprehended he tried to snatch pistoi he sustained injuries. j'ur;.fi.p'edv":j'oIfaccused Nos.1 and 2. In his sratem§.1t i3§,}_""'po§iice under section 161 Cr.P.C:X,. he when he had jumped on accused 'i"\io.V1 to. s'natc"h the pistol, he had sustained ..TzheAsho'*t;*"which was fired, had passed through ."H:e"had sustained injury consequent to the shot 'fired by There were burn marks on his shirt. From the cross~exarnination of PW6, we find ".tha't he had no enemity with accused No.1 nor he was i " "interested in PWs.4 and 5. However, the question as to whether accused No.1 had shot fire on PW6 has to be considered in the context of medical evidence and evidence of Ballistics expert.

17. At the relevant time, PW7 -- Veera'hV.keg:o.wda was working as an Attender in Mallikarjuna _ Thuraganoor. He has deposed that Pl/l.*s-.»4r.:'::ariCl:.: 5.Ase;r1t».»4"'*~« words to accused No.1 through refused to meet Pws.-4 and.5.-..__.V A it _' it it i

18. PW8 -~ Boregowda'~-iwiaswpgruVh'rr-iriigdza petty shop near Mallikarjuna _l'lOt supported the case 7-of pr-osVecutio'n._"Hie-~--was treated as hostile. He was cross examinedV"by"'Eearri'ed' Public Prosecutor.

1. l ErvenAdurihg"**tt:e cross-examination, he has not given "e»?_i'dericei:ol' incriminate the accused.

-- Venkatesh who is alleged to have at rwitnessed the occurrence has not supported the case of prosecution. rv , 18

20. PWIO --- Krishnegowda and PW11 -

Neelegowda had signed the spot mahazar whine-h'_i~~._are marked as Ex.P3 and Ex.P10.

21. PW12 ~--

cycle bearing registration Ngo._CRE\i/'i'»<_iA§6t_i', wh'iCiU'ias'v by accused No.1. At the reie'\iant tinrie; .F_5_W1."2 that he had given the frien'd"'i54eriswamy and later on, he learnt was seized by poiice.

who is stated to have witnessed --the'-".oc¢Vurre'n:§ie«__has not supported the case of A prosecuti»on;i g.The'"e'vi"de'nce of PW14 -- Cheluvashetty reiates _ to:i"nve:=_tiga'tior'r.of case.

*";'PW15 -- Dr.C K Ajithkumar has deposed that V. hes_.4'ha'o"¢examined PW6 -- Gopi at about 8.30 pm. on ""2§'.O6.1995 in the Government Hospital, T.Narasipura and ._,.found the foiiowing injuries: .Y\3_ ¢W{§L ' 19 "An abrasion injury measuring 1 X S -cms over left ioin over iiiac crest area, no bony tenderness."

PW15 has opined that injury was simple and he has issued wound certificate, which-is' Ex.P17. He has deposed that:-ii'r1jt.:~ryA' caused by use of firearm. AA in it During cross~examinativo:n~,.> PViii5._ has that he cannot say the W!?._e of"fir:ei?"§ﬁ-r.,YVhi'c'h'wars} used for causing injury to PW6.' He burn marks on cioths,of~..irijured1::;;,: "deposed that injury found on PW6 oouid' a person falls from a moving vehicie.

i.1jhe eiyidence of PW16 -- K M Madegowda .Vre.piates:V'gtoAVfjdeiivery of first information report to Ju'i=.i.sdi§;tion.aii Magistrate. it PW17 -- M G Prabhakar is the Baiiistics expert.

"examination of pistoi sent to him, he had issued the (U. 20 certificate marked as Ex.P19. He has deposed that the pistol was not in proper working condition. During cross examination, he has -deposed_4thVat'_:'if.._the cartridge is live, it would contain wad between base and mouth of cartridge. Wad"ah.d_»: pellets not been sent for examination. ZPWL?hasd_.epo'se"dVithatghe cannot say since how long*--.._VpistVo'i-._was condition. ll 2 I V

27. On carefutcons.id-ereltioniiiof evidence of PWs.1 to 6, I find their g=:'videnr.e'*'suffer from any discr'epa._ncies;7.'Ajsva'lready*stated, PWs.1 to 3 were High School Students.' not have enemity or ill--will to falselyii.depose.._against the accused to implicate him in the . "c.a_se._vAThefevidence of PWs.4 and 5 who are unconcerned does not suffer from any discrepancies. of PW6 the injured witness, that after seeing " the accused holding a pistol, he had tried to snatch the 3"-Jplistol from him and in the scuffle, accused No.1 fired a "shot from his pistol and he had suffered injury; Accused m.

21 No.1 was apprehended near the piace of occurrence does not suffer any discrepancies. There are no reaso4n.s'i»to".h0Ed that the above said witnesses had concocted.stori,i_'Ve§1_ai.nstp_v the accused to implicate him. Therefore."'the=proSer;Vuti_or'iur has proved the incident.

28. The cruciai point'Eofrv.detevrrriinawtion "Whether the tri~a_i Court 'w'a.sVVV"ju.stified'"in"hoiding the accused guiity of an Section 307 of IPC?" . . , As evidence of PWs.15 and PW17. on._W|'o'in of PW6 was not a buiiet injurv'.-. the that injury suffered by PW6 was caused fi'rea'itm""i.s not certain. There was neither a ' woijnd. o'f..entrv""n'ovr a wound of exit. There was an of PW6. Even if the builet fired from the Rad. Caused ca.» cxbraﬁinu pi_sto| accused,' it would not attract an offence A pumshiabie under section 307 IPC.

' gv . D""'£{"' 22 In a decision reported in AIR 1996 SC 3236'_(in the case of Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar and other.s'~.y:'.j««.:$ta'te of Gujarat) at Paragraph 14, the Supreme "Despite these being the inj_ur.ies', that as these had been caused adfiire by Sanjuben who was exari*;ineti.xas"ié'>'t'\'lV:"'}', a.{Vvh.eij§peEiet~i:i' had struck the head,' inteh_tiio:ri:.or,giknoiwiedﬂgejiito cause death was presenta we would be justified to reae, we because though the injury:_.wias' to have grazed the hoid that ingredients of Sei:tior:* qua Sanjuben. Instead, the offeinceé corrimitted' gym attract Section 324."

EPWIZ has deposed that on examination of pistoi, he it was not in a working condition. The int(estigatiri~g'iVofficer had not sent the wound certificate to PW17 his opinion, as to the injury mentioned in the V":V'_AAtt;ou'r.id certificate was a firearm injury and injury couid have been caused by firing a shot from pistoi marked as m! (ﬁccypxivﬂav .

23 M02. The investigating officer had not found bullet near the place of occurrence said to have been fired fro_n1 the pistol by the accused. In view of the absence evidence and positive opinion of ballistics possible to hold that prosecution__has;"lprovedwlbeifwondu" reasonable doubt that accused pistol. V 2 V T % 2.9. The nextcsiiestion-~--io'r-.d'aterniinat.ion--Ewould be whether the accusedllélhad and 5 by pointing pistoliait thern.' eviidfence and 5 does not revea'lii.:f;qat":l?;3'ccu's»ed was""Vpointing pistoi at them. Duringi'--cro«ss?e-xaniin_ati..oh,.:i?~W4 has deposed; when he saw accus_ed p.etty~._ shop, a crowd had gathered and of the p'ui3'i'iVc were questioning the accused as to there. PW4 has deposed; PW6 had of accused. The accused extricated and fired a shot fifoin his pistol. PW6 has not deposed that pistol was a_i»r_'i':iA'ed at him or at PW6. The evidence of PW4 and PW6 N that accused was holding a pistol and a knife and accused W' .$"\,.»uu6L;\~ 24 heid both the weapons simultaneousiy looks improbable. PW5 has not supported the case of prosecution ari('i-h"e:g'w,as treated as hostile witness.

In the discussion made found on PW6 was not firearm Thei.

PW4 and PW6 that accusedlvuias knifellwand a pistol simultaneously circuvvmstances, it is hardiy possibie to:_:h'oAl_d_ had fired shot from his Therefore, he cannot be5oii'ence punishabfe under Sectio,n"3VO7i* factllremains that accused had causedzinjluryl criminal force.

,,._§g3(}. SrVi'.i4...Va:$fr:'_ath Pasha, learned Counsel appearing ifor.the_jaccu,s'ed__ would submit that PW6 had suffered injury he"'Vh'_ad"ig'rappled with the accused. Therefore, there V .V was°'no "uoluntary act on the part of accused. From the evidence of PWs.4 to 6, it is clear PW6 apprehending danger tried to snatch pistol from 'r»'- aQt -Qwvt-"'L"

the hands of accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that accused had used force to resist the acts of accused had used criminal force and causedjiaurtiittof"

The acts committed by the a<:cuse.ci__wou'E.d"tc'le;,.;iv' a_ttra.r;t if an offence punishable under Sectlion of'El_>:'C.:"t

32. From the and also from the ﬂxofficer it is proved that the acc'u_s'e'_d'}vi:a~¢Ti~ﬁ_~Passession of a country made£.Vt:pI'pist_ol§tvfith'o:u't"'=a_n:vTlicense. This act of "attract an offence puni:jhaVb'lei}untltdfieltr fjS:g'e.:ctio«n"vVV2b(1E5)(a) of the Arms Act.

The--..V:Vvvl"earned sessions Judge without p'r.1):;3E?,ﬁl'lAyatp-p__reCiating the evidence of PWs.4 to 6, the'rn'e'cl.'i'»ca'l§;;.evidence of PW.15-~Dr.C.K.Ajit Kumar and evidence of PW.17-Mr.M.G.Prabhakar 4'7,:(Ba4_lAEis'tic expert) has held accused guilty of an 'offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The "learned sessions Judge has failed to notice that PW4 has m elm 29 imprisonment as aforestated shal! rut; concurrentiy.

*bgn/ahb

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court