Ramesh N J S/O Javaraiah vs State Of Karnataka By K R Pet Ps on 6 October, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Ramesh N J S/O Javaraiah vs State Of Karnataka By K R Pet Ps on 6 October, 2009

Bench: Jawad Rahim

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT A'  %

DATED THE, THE 0531 DAY OF  . K 

BEFORE! .
THE HONBLE MR.JIJsf:'1cEia%xwAD  V 
     H 
Between s  V'  

Ramesh N.J..

S/0 Javaraiah,   :   . 

Aged about 3:E34y;3'7;S.a:,'  2:    

Natanahalhg 44  "  __   

Aakkihebbal Hdbli,  . ' 1}  t--
K.R.Pet.Tali1}g'5'?"1§;,_éL26,_"'  "  

Mandya District. if ' _  _   Petitioner

{by SriR.ﬁ'\.:,OuVFd1,t 

  éta?;e"of Karnataka by

. 1 "KfR,,Pe,t'Po1ice Station.
a "RepVfb3,fState Public Prosecutor.
Higi1'j_C:')urt of Karnataka.

 2.  .. S}1'1..N".K.N1I"1g€ gowcla @

Bannegowda.
 S/0 late Karigowda,
' Aged about 55 years.

b  N.K.Ramegowda,

S/0 late Karigowcla,
Aged about 55 yrs.,



4. N.K.Ani.1a @ N.R.Anilkumar
S / o N.K.Rameg0wda,
Aged about 23 years.

5. Abhi @ N.K.Abhi1ash.
S/o N.K.Ramegowda,
Aged about 21 years,  .

6. Shekara @ N. K.Rajashe1{a:ad '

S/o N.K.Rameg0wda, A
Aged about 36 yte_a'rs. 

7. N.T.Lohitha

S / 0 late Triimmegoivda, " 

Aged about years. =

Respondents.V2't;o1.;:? pare" V  "
Agricuiturists;  _ 
R / o Natanaha  . v,1'_1l'age;i._ " - ....
Aakkihebbalu Hobli, ' ..  _ 
K.R.Pet Taluk 57-1 426.,  '
Mandya Dis.trici..V  A 

... Respondents

C._xf1.RP idsmfiled 11/8 397 r/w 401 CIZPC praying to

  order dated 30.12.2008 passed by the
 .Additiori'a1 Spessions Judge, Mandya in SPL.C.No.48/ 2008

'and furthjerf' to remand the matter for fresh trial in
ao'e0rd._arice~"with iaw against the respondents.

.'Fhis Cr1.RP coming on for admission this day, the

0 '~ A:Couprt made the foilowingz

ORDER

This petition is by the compiainant directed against the judgment in Special Case No.48/2008 on the file of a;

the fighting group and as the elders in the village not take any action, the complaint prosecution. He submits that ignoring the clear incriminating aspects spoken "to by.'the petitioner/ complainant and to Sfmade-I of the delay in lodging the that the delay in lodging the vAA.'attr_ibutab1e to the conduct of inaction on the part of the". Valpanchayath for resolution of ' thewcvomplainant believed them in goodiaith no action was taken. Hence, he lodgedhag_Vrepo.rtA'--.Qn'~"Q4.5.2O08 being unsuccessful in V' _ n:1atter'adjudicated by the local panchayath. This has explained the delay satisfactorily and it not to the prosecution. Insofar as the overt~acts of accused; are concerned, he would contend that the accused " acted in consort to assault the complainant, his mother and brothers. They were fully armed with stones and sticks indicating prior meeting of minds with a common intention to assault the victims and to criminally intimidate them. He Q E"

-7.

not yet been notified and the matter has come up' {or admission. 1 have therefore bestowed my..c.oncernf' to see, whether the grounds urged merit i.I,1t'e;rfere'nAce.:

impugned judgment.

5. At the first look~_.._it .thataPWs.~i:§to 6 have clearly deposed about' the accused and such/ as evidenoe the aggressors and the on closer scrutiny, as several inconsistent staterrientsl oft i.e., regarding the actual assault used for the assault and the rovleipiayed by'leach___o.f the accused. PW.2--i\/Iariyamma has in » gheryVev%i_deneAe'stated that she was assaulted with hands by H after another and two of the accused held a tuft of"--hger'hlair and dragged. As against the said evidence of "the_victim, PW.1~Ramesh gives an exaggerated version of the ll'-acc'used using sticks to cause injury to PW2. From these i V' "two statements, I notice that the statement given by the victim should be more believable rather than the witness to the incident. 'i.'he victim in her evidence says that the

-6"?

" is I ,-

xf; /""

/ -30- are brought out in the groxmds of the decline to accept it.

In the result the petition is };iisrniosjr3d'._ai4_the'sta,go.,oof' admission having no merit in 171, u Nd/--

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court