Karnataka High Court
State By Yelawala Police Station vs Mariyamma on 30 May, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2011. . BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.V. PINTO CRL.A.NO.642 OF 2010. cy (Ay. . : a BETWEEN: | STATE BY YELAWALA POLICE STATION. MYSORE. - , a .. APPELLANT (BY SRLP.M.NAWAZ; ADDL. SPP.) AND 1. MART? "AMMA. _ ~ W/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA, AGE: 76 Y EARS. 2. CHUNCHEGOWDA.. S/O LATE KEMPFGOWDA, "AGE: 60 YEARS. - 3. NAGARATHNAMMA @ RATHNAMMA oo W/O BASAVEGOWDA ~ AGE: 35 YEARS. "ALL. ARE R/AT ANANDUR VILLAGE, YELWAL HOBLI, MYSORE TLAUK, . MYSORE. .. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRLY.D.HARSHA AND SRLM.NAGESH, ADVS. FOR R2 & R3) No THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 378(1) & (3) CR.P.C. BY THE STATE P.P FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT. THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUD* SEMENT. OF. ACQUITTAL DT.29.01.10 PASSED BY .f HE. ~ ADDL-. .
SPL.JUDGE, MYSORE IN CRL.A (58702-ACQUIRTING THE | RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE CETENCE P/C {Ss Set, 324, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS. COMING FOR ADMISSION ON THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE, FHE. FOLLOWING:
JUDGEMENT no Heard | Sri Pp, M. Nawaz. "learned Additional SPP regarding admission,
2. Tt is-neen. thal the respondents were accused in C.C. No. 859/ 1999 on 'the fie of the JMFC (II Court), Mysore whe were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The NS first aecused-is reported to be dead and the appeal now stands against accused Nos.2 and 3.
7 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.10.1998 at about 5.45 p.m., at Anandur village, there was some ~ altercations between the complainant and the accused in respect of Hibiscus flowers and Guava fruits. It is alleged that accused No.| restrained the complainant and. accused No.2 assaulted the complainant by club on his back. aad. criminally intimidated the complainant and 'thereby they*are alleged to have committed aforesaid offences...
3. To prove the case, the prosecution examined in all 7 witnesses and got marked "Exs,P.1 16. P.4 and produced MOs.1 to 3. The learned Magistrate: after hearing the prosecutioni and the defence convicted accused No.1 for the offence. punishable. under Section 341 IPC and convicted accused Nos.2° and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and. sentenced them as aforesaid. Accused No.2 was also further convicted for the offence under Section 506 IPC:
4. The: accused filed an appeal before the learned os Sessions Judge, Mysore. The learned Sessions Judge has . : allowed the said appeal on the ground that there is a delay of tnore than 6 days in filing the complaint, even there is a "A delay in approaching the doctor for taking the treatment.
The learned Sessions Judge has further held that witnesses PWs.5 and 7 are from another village namely Mollaia bali of Pandavapura Taluk and to come to the scerie' of ocean 'ence, . they have to cross Kannambadi_ bridge 'and hence, the learned Sessions Judge has held thai PWs.5 and i 'aie chance witnesses, their presence. al the : scene of ¢ occurrence is improbable. The learned Sessi sions: Judge has further observed that the further delay cf 6 "days in filing the complaint has be er i made: use > by the con mplainant to procure witnesses and if at valht the complainant was badly injured he would. have" somestiately 'gone 'to the hospital. On the aforesaid grounds, the earned Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal. "
5. J have gone through the judgment of the learned "Ses ssions: "uudse: 'and the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Jadge for acquitting the accused. I find that the ~.. said reasoning is proper and is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. Ona thorough reappreciation of the ~~ evidence, | do not find any reason to differ from the views expressed by the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused. It is seen that the incident is of the year 1998 and it has occurred for a few Hibiscus Nowers aid Guava. fruits between neighbours. It is nota fi fit case: to": grant dea - It is brought to the notice of the Court that. an appeal filed for enhancement of the sentetice has been di sitissed by this Court in CHLANo.1964/ 2002 by sadgmert dated 18.03.2008. It is not in 'the, interest. of justice to keep this matter pending. Hence, I hold that ner is 'no merit in this appeal and accordingly, tis 'appean 4 is dismissed in the admission stage self. | --- | Sd/-
Judge