State Of Karnataka By The Sub Inspector ... vs K V Prakashbabu S/O Venkataramanappa on 19 July, 2011

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka By The Sub Inspector ... vs K V Prakashbabu S/O Venkataramanappa on 19 July, 2011

Bench: N.Ananda

1. K. V.Prakashbabu

WOU DOF BONUS A KARI COURT OF CARMATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

By Sri M:P.Rawaz, Addis

S/o. Venketaramary
ied aboist 20

: |. Prohibition. Act. Acct

EE REISE AEE NSIS IESRES TIISGET Se GIL NIT KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR

hable wu

Dowry Prohibition Act.

NDENTS:

State arid |

per Exi.P-1 to P-23 +

1-te. 4 were x

' "161 CrP, were.

uns in.the statements of PX

No.1 of anc

CVU E VP RARRNALARATIGM COURT GP RAKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

z ie;

HEE MAMIE ME MARIVATARA FHGH GOUKT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR

No.1 of an offs

€ punishable under

g ®

er point No.3. :
point No.2 has 'held thet ©
of

t--accused namely,

t 8.00 p.m., 'on 20.8.2 4

infentionzlly caused the death of his «

enema?"

OURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

om
+

HIGH

ARMADA TIT GWE GP RAKNGOIAKA MiGh COURT OF KARNATAICA

@
g
2
é
4
a
2
4

e the death or Aaje
place; from the : stat
to knew that first 'acct

from the { bus, we

long. with hie.son ¢
about. &, 15 pom.

thet firet accused committed murder of hz

wife Anja y of dowry

by the accused, it

is a fit case to give benefit of soubt te

MAP So EE WOT TAA DAO PE LURE WP ARI AIAMG Might GUOURI OF KAKNALAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR

Nos... to 3.

acoused
rably
itted

at first accused _ ms

of his 'wife. -

' 1995 sc. 686 tin

e of Ve. 'State of

to notice and 'weruithiie. :
after considering the subn isa

bar arrive at

with it t

ssecd at the
The trial Court hes not done ac. The

charge of :

There is no mention-in'. ~:

18 MGM GWU) WP ROR ALAMA HiGM COURT OF KARNATAKA

"conclusions® and nothing more. The

ent of the trial Court cannot,

SHADY ENG KE Moh MYPAL ER GMI R Gor ligd Ke 4% B

68500
=

y 2' ¢ ee oe MAR PRIA PGP GuVECE UP RANKRMALOKA MiG GUUKRE OF KAKNATAKA HEGH CO _ formulated by the BESSA EE Sar Sea Loh 8 Gl ge & efore, be sust rided to the t Ve. State of isn 313 CrP g&@ and we satisfactory. laid down that i Court to « bh COURT MA FGI COURT OF RARNATAICA HH] a "SS, ay Bove ~ g z woe home 4

i) Phy, ;

od a bes ) rt a z s 4 Pa bu 7 x 5 iy, we rc 5 we ass wf Be ge eae &, g FX EAA ALPS pur explain any in the prosecution ©. upon for imperative on the Court to record the er Section 3 313 © Cr rPS: of the jal. the Supreme Cour "The answers by an accu:

tion 313 of Cr.P.c eut the truth and of rele ecuton. 13 Cr.P.c. @ wide and is scope of § w ty. Let us examine the ge essential features of this section ard the cannot be relied 2010 SC 3570 'Ve. State of of law as enunciat factora-cf-. ~.

of Section 312 .. the abject of of 'the cotsed | m 313 of Cr.P.C. is to put all idence to the accused 80 ati opportunity to ee eviceme. of MiharM GUURKE OP KAKINAIAKA KiGM COURT CF the 'osecution It @ a PSOE eh a PY TRULIA FIG ESB ed FAA Soh FHA Baue Saud? Shel SRL GAT RK reasons, for his ent im the commission of or is the statement, "ow we } } ul | the Court-and the accused 2 gach ia ete estion that:1 eh AS EE AU TE tate NE OMe To OA RAAT Tn WUE UP ORAL Piiah WUUMI UP KARNATAKA HGH COURT Cr.P.c.

12. In a judgment rey : of Ta ig based "uport "the. "words" din provided -- by. Section» 145 of the Ind ° ne Act, 1872 72 fo FOG Gi WE MART ATAR Pifh GUUKT OF RARNATAIA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 3 Court in njab (1), 1952 (AIR 1982 SC 214). followed to a % ¢ & e & '4 = g:

y a7 g % P ee 5 e & a 4 ribea the procedure to contradict a witmess under S ion 145 of Mparm COUERE OF KAKNADLAKA FIG COURT mh & Oi, ia has x a "ey my, 2 a ies ao 2 we wa bas % 2 pone ge a"

wh 2% LS nt. In that.event, it would , 7 me that fe did and if the . : statement w. -

ion 145 rex must be drawn tot for contradiction. But that -- parts which are to aoSATYy bol book 1 to the former sta of | which mo "Sarth ar proof is use aft the ads a asicin that it wae : It ie ung ion 145 of tl decision of i: Kvidénee Act, for the a: decisions were not witness as to previous COUR AB GM ¢ & y a Z e i '] 4 wer 9 5 Tete UE RO BK a contradict & wit FERNS Bo OT WET IEA, A ET Gi Ve ARMA Mish UWUKE OF RANNALAMA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIG without ._ ra] by 8 way a | Ww vith cross ae of it which are to purpose of contradicting i ion 162 of Cr.P.C only enables the of such statement to i to meke > in the ler pro =» Evidence Act. Nor are i by the as at it would MPG@M CQUKRI Ur ROARNALAKA MNioh COURT RUBINO EGOS, PP ARC Gb RUG RIN A EA MP WWE Gs "a a UE OGL sd tél you s ay ~ that 'you. saw a light?" as licates the simple ° iB stabbed © Cy before the police he had stated. 'thet D 7 : attention oan be drawn ts t of the statement raaile before the which contradicts statement in the 38-box." af he= ad tits his. fore the police ¢ @ record of 4 ent, his entire statement Fo 'Hostrete: A ae & & * é i 2 vag Ba Cer WT HH * he had. stated before the police-o So RST AE Rete SW AO TA WS We RARMATABRA Milter GUUKI OF KAKRNATAIA MIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR could not be used for any | se, whereas | 162 of the Code. The second falls by the ilhustration Counsel for ppel te tt ie re ja ia no self contra n of the f statenient made in the witneys- ede: on 'the stand any 3 which. _can © serve. as the contradiction; under' the section, should be Seri what & wittese Asean what he atated before the id a-hox and icer, ard mot between what he de before him. In such not be put at all: whet he aict a case the question only ques

4 Courmel lence Act is, therefore, not of any d upon Section 145 % in comsidering the expreas won psult, we pass the ieliew:

rte State is aovepted. The e is. sat "aside. ation of accused ed to the trial | Cont for ¢ The lea:

AU 0 MSU AQIS GP RGA RUSE TU PG SGU WP RUS ORE PG WR Qe RUGS PGA Pert 8 GUT Sad PP i ood GH COUR [ TEEN ENS POENERE SOEUR WE MAINE FIST WWE UP RAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HI 18 lof case. The accused shall to the satisfaction of: | to send | back the records ot, forthwith and a copy aleo bé sent. to the r he is work

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court