Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Ramesh @ Shivakumar on 21 June, 2010
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao, K.Govindarajulu
I RIA"IVEESIJ:"@.__SHIVI;II{UMAR
:Sj/Q BALAYYA
I {By S1'-PSACHIN MAHAJAN, ADV. AMICUS CURIAE)
CELA. FILED U/S.37S(I) 82 (3) CR.P.C BY THE
I STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS
" HONTSLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED To GRANT LEAVE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 215'? DAY OF JUNE,
PRESENT ""CCCI"I
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE I'
THE HON'BLE Ix/TRJUSTICE *
CRIMINAL
CRIMINAL A.PI'?EAI,I 1\i§)."1'~E3.'6'I:Q}?"V" 2006
CRL. A.
STATE QE I I APPELLANT
[BY SMT. 'A,NURA:T)HA SPP)
'P/AT KQPAMANGALA
BANGALORE RESPONDENT
TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
DT.3II8.O5 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., RAICHUR, IN
S.C.NO.75/01- ACQUITFING "THE RESPONDENT
2
/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S3143. 120~B,
124--A, 153MB AND 118 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC.
CRLA NO 186/2006:
BETWEEN
STATE OE KARNATAKA A'PBEiI;éIAI\rI*_ 1 1
{BY SMT. ANURADHA DESA1, S:'PP):_j= '.111 1
AND V'
ADIVAPPA
S/0 RAMANNA 7
AGED ABOUT 30 YRS. _
occ GUMASTHE I ..
R/O RESPONDENT
(By SMT.S'US%jIEE:E,A,-}}IDV_.VA'M*I,CUS CURIAE]
THIS.G'RL,A;I F1'1;:ED"'--IJ'%S.3T'8{-11 & (3) CR.P.C BY THE
STATE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'B.LE._COUR'.1'18/1AY*--BE.PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE
TO FILE AN '--APPEAI--., 'AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
DT.V3_1.8.OE'3 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., RAICHUR, IN
S.,Q_.NG«.71/O3II_VA- ADQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/
'ABCII.S.ED._FoR'TTIE OFFENCES B/U/SS.143, 120-B.
» _124--AT '1I53;BI_AND 118 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC.
I ' vVTI;1ES1EVV1VAPPEAI,S COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS _DAY, SREEDHAR RAO J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The respondents / accused in both the cases are 1 wcharged <:om_m1'titing Off€11(.'I:'.S um:'ier Section 143, 118, 12013, 124+}, 15313 read with 149 DfIPC. 3
2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent / accused persons had gathered .in_ the house of one Patnam Shivappa in Jegarkal lzélear Raichur. They were making speeches" 'Valid it provoking people to revolt against' accused are said to belong to Gro'up',§ which have the coI11mur1ist '~ l
3. PW--l is P'gV§.2~-._1siA.'the CPI along with other staff go. to Jpevgahrkal watched the proceedingglpv ithe. for sometime. The reSpon_d_ent_V pl 2006 was making provocatinglllspeeC:hTe's._:"to 'people to resort to armed struggle': * Pwgi and PW~2 and other police staff .' the respondent./accused. Others in the The books relating to political literatiizrehllrvas also seized from the custody of the V. xrespondents.
JJ 4
5. in the eviderice PWMI supports the case of the prosecution whoiewheartedly. However, he doe~~s___ not identify the accused. PW~2 has given eviderifloej accused were holding meeting provoking people to resort. to violent methods."PW-'SH V' h later took up the PW--2 and PW43 are the "are no' indeperident witness-f:€€;A_ i1"1Ve'ir'"VjevidenCe. The trial court has no good reason to appeal dismissed.
6. The fee 'of meme Cr}. No.185/2006 and in Cr1.A_. No'.186/2Q'QE§~-,iis"~~~i'ixed at Rs.5,000/- the State '§hali»- fee 'Lia-er amicus curaie. Sd/~ JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE