Abdul Subhan @ Subhan vs The State Of Karnataka By D J Halli Police ... on 5 December, 2008

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Abdul Subhan @ Subhan vs The State Of Karnataka By D J Halli Police ... on 5 December, 2008

Author: K.Ramanna

Bench: K.Ramanna

        

 taka
By D.J.'IStai:ion  Rcspondcnt

 " 'Vag33711§t the judgment dated 34-2005 passed by the II!
A  "A:;id_l.S;J., Bangalore City in S.C.N«o.38/04 convicﬂng the
__*_.appe:1!£t:nt~--accuacd for the oﬁénoe punishabk under Section
   307}' IPC and sentencing him to undergo R}. for 5 years and
  a ﬁne of Rs.3,000/-, in deﬁult to undergo SI. for 6
, fmonths fbran offence punishable under Section 307 IPC,' the

' A default sentence shat! run cons-cc=u£iveEy-

i
in THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA;1.£)::Rj:_?;~.V_
DATED THIS THE 5* DAY" 01? DECEMBER_..  ;;-f f   .

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR.Jus'r1c.:}3 1{.§§AMAﬁ'§iA'«- '%   
CRIMINA_L_ APPEQQNO. 8522005  .v  "  "

BETWEEN :

Abdul Subhanfzgiﬁuhhan.' =:   A V 
Sfo Abdul Hafe-3:2   ;_     V

41 yrs, No.2; ncgér  "
Arabic (..'x:-liege  ._ '

 . ' Appemnt
(By sris  for Mahcsh as Mahcsh, Advs)

 . {By Sn' H Hanumanthaxayappa, HCGP)

Tm; 'icximmal appeal is ﬁled under Section 374 Cr.P.C.

' 

if



chm    Whcn she was in her "m--]aw's house,
  the husband started 5}} treating her and

.  he used to return m the house 21:21 the
 V.  static and thcztﬁnc, P.W. 1 almig with her female
  decided to live in her mothcfs house and her 9011

T! . . . I 1 GO - EA-   
Judgment this day, the Court  tbs: V  

JUoGME&f  Q %
The appcﬂant-accused  'V %'
and order of  .da€cd .3;I"fQ5x.'l§   the In
Add1.S.'J., Bangaiom   convicting the
appellant-accused rgmgc  Section
am me am    5 mm and
to pay a ﬂag 9:': ﬁndc1*go SJ. tr 6
months. J  AV   

2. The VVfa¢ts d'f  an: that P.W.1 -- Vahﬁs-1'

Begum is; 130:}:   wife of the appellant. The
 . 1.9,; ¢:§f P§w.}u:9ok  about 12 years pan' to the date
of    wedlock, thmc flcmalc and one main



was living with her husband. When she stmtcd " 

her mothcfs house, zclativcs of appellant  '

and roqucsﬁod to join her hushand.:'Smc¢A"V  

out to her, she 1cﬁ1sc,-ti  "£63". '  
subscquccatly, appellant tqpk a    to eke
out her livelihood, she:   factory.
Since one of   from
mmt   bar mm,
some    ta? her. when she went ta
purchase   medical shap and while

_  by holding a chopper in his hand

   "  dc' away with her lift: and assaulted her

  hands, neck, cars ci:c., When she

    cry. appcllmt ran away with chopper mt!

" j s:3¢  to her moﬂmfs house and her mother mo}: her

   hospital. It appears doctors of the said hoapiml

H   her mother to take her to Bowman' g hospital' where



she was cxamincd md treated by CMO as we}! " 

doctors. She was tacatcd as inpatient. Swat' 1} __   '  '  H

of the Bowrmg' hospital sent a memo;   

the next day mo:rnm' g, P.W.11 «f ASL   

came and mconied hscr       
"4'~E3'Bf£:rod a cast:   fﬁf "ﬁhc- §oﬂ'cnec
punishable under   way aamar: day,
spot mt-313%     "  aminad
cloths M.o.1    §§fP.w.1 bcfou: 1.0.
which    Ex.P~2. ﬁinoc aw
appcllaxia was  '~:<'o:~  azmst, on 7-8-2003
appellant '«    poﬁoc but pmduccd

    he was formally arnzstod and his

    was xcoordod. On the basis of valtmtary

Ox;}3 '--- chopper was seized under mahﬂ and

 _  of the investigation , charge sheet came to

  to the Court of Scssum' 5.

, gt?

    

 



3. In pursuance of the receipt of summoaae,  _  

appealed through counsel and     

puma' hablc under Section 30?'   llm1 t 

guilty and cxmmod to be   % _ _ V
4. To prove the   
prosecution had  8 documents

were marked  M.p"s;'1-- ..':::§% '  produced.
Appcllmfs    have been
rcconiedv.'_   trial Court found
that  punishable under Section
307   and passed the order of

comtie    the appcilant.

" *  AV   *!54f£§'%1*Zi«_.thc eiéuments of learned counsel 1701' both

2'.-?«;?ciﬁ$-   "

  by Learned counsel for the appenant

  the evidence of P.W.l, there are no eye witnesses

  V' vﬂ_1e4"':'.neide1zt. Other witncss-- P.W.2 --- who is mm other

  mother as we]! as her brother P.W.5 are imaemstaed

V   ijwituesses. It is argued that incident is stated to have taken

_ Q



comoboratc with 'the evidence of P.W.1. It is 

that Em?-4 is the wound certiﬁcate wherein  .

injuries caused to P.W.1. 'I'hcrcfon=;,> .4 "= 

inﬂictcd different type of injuries with 

even injmics might be duo to M}{)__§.  
M.O.3 has not been proved  gf   to the
mcovcry mahamr    39.0.3 is
said to have been fpund  prosecution
has not proved    2 

7. In  his  has mind on
the dcc5;$£§ii' 'of  Puwxuns KO'I"I'AYA &
crrusksx-sk  1947 PRIVY COUNCIL 57)
He hagalso  c"i»Lé<"::'sic;-:13 namely,
 E») _A§R.._1954"'3e----39

' ,  A19'?_5A'SCC (Cr) 530

A - " ~33 'Ajmj1%979 so 1252
 _ -i%4.3   (Am 36?:

'  _ Thcfe.fo1'c,"  contended that judgment and orducr of

    by the trial Court is perverse and incorrect

VA   to be set aside.  .

 



8. On the other hand, Lcamcd SPP submjttsﬂi

evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the evidence of  ~

suﬂm' nt to pmvc the guilt of the    " " 'V

appcﬂant has sham" ed his relationship  

Court considering the    of 

P.W. 1, coupled with the 22   vvfmzcovcry
of M.O.3. It is argued  c;hjccts to
chemical  isvinnf   it is only a
dcfcctivc  f   smiikt not suffer and
assailant   mlied on by the
   case. It is argued that
M.C).3 wéséppclmnt in a bush situated in

the bwial gi§5u1§¢i¢lti-- B.:AA"  and is only on the basis of

  appellant alone led the  and

 and took out M.O.3 marl lnmdavcr

m&'L4;e"po1g.~,£; ﬁne 1.0. has compared with Section 27 of the

  by mcovcring M.O.3, After the alleged assault,

A  was absoonding. Since he vnhmtazily appeared

 3,3,3 pmczuoed that: order of annzcipamxy bail granted in his

7



which was cnlacmd into hctwc-sen P.W.1 and  'V H

both had signal it It is not in dis.piitc* ma'; 

residing with her mother's house    , fa " 

children. The evidence of P.w§i1.:d:fx=.a;:;os§;"s  
around 8.30 pm. shc  her    for
treatment and after   sh: Went and
purcﬁascd some   in front
of the bakczy,   threatening her
and  "   stated that she
raised E116  mm: and appellant ﬂcd
the   evidence of P.W.1 further

V     tl1c in<.:idcnt she went to bar mother's

  §ﬁa;'Ah§x««mom¢} her admitted to mcd1scan' hospital

  whéztin  Br. M R Vcxmgopal examined and neticcxi in

  zia33'11'ics. Out «of thssc iﬂjurics, injmics-I to 3 mt:

VA   natmr: and injuries 4 to 7' are grievous in nature.

 pmsncutian also examined another P.W.7]Dr.S

.4 Raznachandm, Surgcxm of  hospital who issued

K



another is straight. M.{).3 7m not the knife theugh it 

what looks like knife. Except denying same  ~

nothm' g Worthwhile has been chm'   of "' 2

P.W.6. Further p.w.7 is onhapacdieeeesueygmgnéewhe

corroborated the evidence vvtq

casualty medical amour who  ,the  en that _

niglgtt, next day morning  recorded the

i13.juricsz1ot1ced' byehim.   on the"

person of P.vs{.a§  .::izi§i'i1~:,»--7Nos.4,5 85 5 air:
grievous   and required
  aiso requirms pmpcr
xehabilitetéxg-":1-- aiad fracture also. Therefore,

even ﬁxougli certiﬁcate history might have

    aecom@ied her daughter P.W.1,

 *A:§heV z:1i;1y:':.iie::k1}awn the weapon with which her daughter

Wes   suggestion was put in P.'W.'7 by the

   that M.(3.3 is a knife which has been denied

   also the suggestion that type of injune' s can be

  if any person falls or fell down or any sharp edged

j .
; ..>

 



14

discloses that about 10 or 11 months back, 011::   V'

comm' gncar D J Halli, police statiox1V;i1;'§.' Q    V'

him to Tannery Road, he acoompauwd" V  

person was sitting inside the mid   
to the grave yard and he; o%:.ic"  fmm
the bush and pmduecci  was seized
under Ex.P-6 an;1Aat.l:cstr,-ti' he was cross
cxamincd,       aionc has
pmduocd__th#  .-»-- Ex.P---6 has clcarly
mmnﬁoaigggd  kept in the bush, was not
visible tﬁbzlﬁh  {public place: when that was

easy §fs(:cc:,3s   Therefore there is no dclay as

   tzzjy  "" "'« it of M.0.3 at that: instance of the

 contention of learned counsel for the

  is delay in scizum of 51.0.3 cannot be

 Of course, admission portion of voluntary

   has to be taken into oonsidcratian that he himself

  over to the burial ground and idcnti&d M.O.3. The

.4 decisions mhled on by thc appellant has not at all made

 



applicable to the facts of the case. The:    

<3€3:tI'0b0IatcS with the cvidcnw of Pf;W;1;«T}1§:j 

that so}: intention to commit 

vital part of the body like n6é}{&r;d  3. 'V V

There is no delay in -cti333..pl§'1it'vand/£3150 in
sending FIR to the  and there is also
no delay in mcgtfcxy of MLO. f§.  Qansaczing the
fact that    and P.W.1 wen:
  separately by taking
  the evidence of prosecution
witncsscﬁ it is   has proved the guilt

of they 'appcllént _I_f)eyt*on'c?.  reasonable pound. Thcrcfom,

  ﬁ?ém a'3Y angle """" &, I do not find any 3006 grounds to

  ordcr of conviction passed by the 11131'

caﬁxt,

1.

i;i. As ﬁn' as scntcnoc is conocmed, the trial Court has the appellant to undergo R1 for 5 years and

- m Fpay a ﬁne of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo s.1. for 6 V:

I months for thc offence punishabkc under ' .¢ and the same does not mqm:n::' any -1' ' V Hence, the appeal fails and is " " n .

*sp     *

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Abdul Subhan @ Subhan vs The State Of Karnataka By D J Halli Police ... on 5 December, 2008

Author: K.Ramanna

Bench: K.Ramanna