Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By Banaswadi Police ... vs Sathyappa Reddy S/O Munivenkatappa ... on 9 August, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
CRL,A;_:N.cL5;964¥/2904
IN THE HIGH COURT 0}? KARNATAKA AT B;§;NGAL:§1r¢-§;_"'
DATES THIS THE 9TH DAY 01:' AU'{3U:%?:f~29«T~i:0«. _ _: "
PRESENT: }
THE }~iON'BLE Mr. .1t;sf1*;c1Ǥ;":s:,'sRE*5,:)fi,r;.R _RA(j;
zirrzrj A
THE HON'i3LE PvI IA\I'I:'A{)
CRIMINAL-1AP?'EA§; No;T9é;;;V}_'2o04
BETWEEN:
State of b V.
By Banaswaéi-V "Ste .1:_i:'3.n." . '-
(By . '
AND:
1.
Sathyappa 'mzay;
S MVunivei13<a"tappa Raddy,
' Aged afiouf 1 years,
' /111V,"[S'I'__Road,
LijJga*fia.ja}?t£V%i3,V-".
'BaI}ga§01'c¥.' -.
"Ready @ Prabhakara,
' S f 0. 1Vi'.V$£athyappa1'eddy,
V. ;r'§.g::§1 about 25 years,
_ Np. 111, VST Road,
" Lingarajapura,
Bangalore.
V 1.533? Sxi.B.M.Siddappa, Aév.)
nvvuw
... APPELLANT
RESPONDENTS
This Cximinal Appeal is filed 21/s.3?8{3) 3% (3) of Cr.P.C.. by the State PP. far the State with a prayer to grant leave 2:3 fik: an appsa} i'\3 cRL.Af.se';'964/2004 against the Judgement 8:. Order of Aequitta} dt. 15. by the EV A€idI.S.J, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, in S.C.--uN'o.194{_03T:' t3<1e:fe1:+y acquitting the Iespo11de11ts~acc1:sed of the oi3fe11(:es'~jg)[ 'u['Ss.34'1,_«3'2~'?}, 307 r/w.see.34 of}PC. : » V' 2 This appeal coming on for RA.('}',A "
J, delivered. the foI1oWi11g:~ The materiai facts of Vthe disclose mat there was a civil disp1e1te.':Vt;ehv(§engthe Accuses 1 and 2 (for short A1 P_..'N.2 who are the neighbours. raw. 1 is .t11eevn1;ct1:tet:':é;yf'P.1¥ff2.; 15,w;3..s£~. the wife of ?.w.2, awe is the brother the doctor who treated P.W.2 and P.W.3.
A _ "e1.o.oe.;zGé>t2' at 8.00 p.m., P.w.2 and P.W.3 came on tu1.*;<$tg;394{::fie1e:'%tcvtfite_j..house. when P.W.2 was parking the motor-cycle, and assaulted P.Ws.2 and 3 with stick and sickle. "A3 abette§1'i- the assault. Since A3 is absconding, case against him is V' The accused are charged for the offence under Sections ,ff34';1, 324 and 30? read with Section 34 of 1190. The Tfial Court has u acquitted the accused. The State is in appeal. Q'?
cRL.A.N;i;'9e4/2004
3. P.W.1 is an eye--Witness to the incident. ate the injured witnesses. They testify to the motive is aciv'i1__ dispute between them and the accused" a:<1dx_ that..__.Vace;1'sed 3ave1'e_ beefing grudge against them. In ion 8.00 p.m.. P.W'.2 and P.W.3 came weflen P.W.2 was parking the metegq-cycle)'1tii;e;tid._A2 assaulted them with club and sickle. P.W.2 and P.W.3 went to the poiice' stéztiegn immediately. They are sent to 9.40 p.93. The F .I.R is lodged at the treatment. P.W.1 and P.W.4, eyessvitiiesses' and their evidence clearly prove the ixzcicient. cP.i\\f.5xiis 'eiector who treated and issued wound eeitificate testii'j;"'«tQ.tliev injuries of P.W.2 and P.W.3. The evidence is credible. P.W.1 and P.W.4 are ey'e--wit11esses to the Wound certificate and lodging of complaint iaimedie£te1y'*tviti;iin a shert course of time would fully comsborate the ix'fig.-eeeeraticiiviiicase and the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 Iegaxvding It *,_i as_se"m1t; "
4. The order of acquitta} recorded by the Trial Court is bad in law and the same is set aside. With regaxd to the nature of offence. it is to be seen that the injuries sustained by P.W.2 and %/ CRL.A.vi§é..:§*5f1/2004 P.W.3 are simple in nature, caused with deadly weape:£$3.'__'_fTh§£i~gfore, acquittal under Section 30'? is sound and. convicted for the ofiisnce under Section'! on .$ep;2;{fei'1:é;V for causing injuries to P.W.2 ..énd pay fine of Rs.10,00{)/- each" on éoumji fifider Section 324 mad with S.::;§;i9n ééuéi ng injmfies to P.Ws.2 and 3, in default, to"1§11'¢;'1V'e'3'"g-1;' gig;-iod of three momhs. In other wortis, 31 §§:';€§,§.2o,o00/ -. Out of the fine amount, as compensation to P.W.2
5. mp: agapeaj "ai1<5;v'ed.
..{§€;n31:iu13icat§é"Vce--}2§,*«'of Judgment to the trial Court to enforce 'the ..-3e:':xtt;I1cc';~ "
Sd/-3 JUDGE Sd/--~ JUDGE b:uv"'