State By Alur Police vs Lokesha S/O Hanumaiah @ Doddahanumaiah on 10 August, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

State By Alur Police vs Lokesha S/O Hanumaiah @ Doddahanumaiah on 10 August, 2010

Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10??' DAY OF AUGUST 2010*»-___

PRESENT

'rm'~: I~ioN'I3L£«: MR JUSTICE K SI2E*3I+2D}--iA:I:%:"E§   -A '

AND -

THE HONBLE ;'.\/1I{.JL§S'E;11f3Er:7'_i_§3.'"§Dv/.P--i1*$'fG.--:

CRIMINAL APPEAL_NQ.2143 ()9 BEIWEEN: * STATE) BY ALUR PoL1<:E;~~.. «_ 1- D V ~ ._ APPELLANT (BY:.:SR1.C{.B§1IAV;§.NI H, app AND:

3/0 i-iAN.I.I.A~-2A1AH' " 13'0D'Dfp.1«IAI§:UMALAH.

'AG'E;D 3Q*Y:E-;?A'RS. HARIJAN.

AGRICL?[i3'UR3'ST. '

- EIASSAN 13151'.

Do:}ADAKAINA§3ALu VILLAGE.

KA;:-3ABA~ HOBLI.

ALUR TALU K. RESPOE\a'DE)N'I' {DY SRLVEVEK SREDDY. ADV ABSENT}.

%/ |~J THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED U/S..ii PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT. 1958 BY PP. FOR THE STATE PRAYINO THAT TIIIS HOi_\£'i3LE MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO 1:iI:_,E- ..,AI\I.f_APPs:AI, I AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT ANo...oRDE1f<' {)"I'-_=.2_8.03V.'2OO5 " PASSED BY THE) ADDL.S.J. & R0. 'PTO.gI,-:'I«I,A3s_AN'." IN S.C.NO.228/01 ETC., ' THIS APPEAL coMINo'i'o'--:\I FOTE: ..I~£E_AR.IvI$€t:..1*'I*Ie{,I$ ..:)AY,.i* SREEDHAR RAG (1., D}f,E,iVE'.REvI)r'TI~IE ITOLLOWINO. The materia} facte VA disciose that there is and the respoIIdeI1ﬁ'-eidc'i:e;ei:it--.__ at about 6 p.m., PW'--} and wifeiA:yvii'._nessing TV. The accused was enCI'oaoi1i;f1g _the .i_3&é1€i§I<y.éii=ﬁ1:'.'o«1""the house of PW-1 by putting fence. .. PWLE. ._ea'me outvaxid objected. The accused with a ' V' (;rO'tvhaT'>aS;sau1tedv"mPW~1 on his head and other parts of the is {:11 eye W"iU1€SS to the incident. A taken to the hospital at I--Iassan. PW~} has stasiiégiriod frac1'.III'e of ieft. ankle. PW-1 and PW--2 have V.'~d":}LI'fIi.]Q'5Ol'i€d the Case of the prosecution. The prosecution has ziiso examined the doctor and proved the injzzries on PW~1. The accused is charged for offences punishab1e__._under Sees. 324» and 307 IPC. The efI'ect.i\.-'e charge s}10L1.ljciv.'£§e--«,fi'r1V1y under Sec.307 IPC and the Charge under Se.;i.;32-5}' +- unrlecessaly. _

3. PW.1 and 1:=w.2 have gix.-'enj_"re€?'id5'31C€~_:" '*§%.,,,f1fi*i:1l Court considering their evidence. aI1d'e0r;vic1j'edA ?jhe..Vacciused--.V"

for an offence under Sec.326 accused to probation and di.recVt.e.£:1V:"iheiiac':;::.:;eedL'§a'~ pay comperasation of Rs.1000/~ t.o_Pw--1iA...2?£i¢:V.sra::a__ Challenging the acquittali: for releasing the accused oh Act for conviction under Sec " H 4'A."fE_heia{:tV_s.h disclose that the assault. made JOY t;he0r1: PW--1 does not 21PI3€ar to be uri;:arbv3c51<ed..assa1,ih{'§""25xs a result. of quarrel. the assault has taken _f3l.aeeV§' Hence. the Cause would be required for ¢c,:;}}:ct1p;i'L;.;_:E1e1~ See.335 1pc and not Sec.328 1pc. The gran£'*QvI'°i:>enefit of Pr0bat.i0r1 of Offenders' Act: for conviction u1ie1"e_.r See.33.':3 IPC does not can for imerlerenee. However. the C0mpe11sat1'0n awarded by the Trial Court is %/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court