Rajegowda @ Devaraju C P No 14932 vs State Of Karnataka By Arehalli Police ... on 13 April, 2010

[Cites 5, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Rajegowda @ Devaraju C P No 14932 vs State Of Karnataka By Arehalli Police ... on 13 April, 2010

Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao

CRL.A.N0.448/2007

IN THE mom COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANoA1toa1é;-<_t"'-- 

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY or APRIL 20.16 1' '7  "' 

PRESENT   

THE I-ION'BLE Mr. JUSTICE " Vi'

THE HON':-3LE Mr.  --B_fVti'h'<tt1't;) 
CRIMENAL   V
BETWEEN:    dd .'  'V

Raiegowda @ Devéeiraoiiqt; V .    4'   
S/o.Doddamane'M1_1dd-egowdag   ' '

Convict Prisoner N§){;3_4932,..  ._  

Central Pri_.son._      

Mysore.  1" H   _ - ...APPELLANT
(By Smt.N.RajarajeshWari  as Amieus Curiae)

AND:

("State eifjtttiiaeﬁlgwaiia,   ..... 
By,A1e_h.a}1: Police-..Station. ...RESPONDENT

(By tsri';,é,.§V;v1é;_n';_ai§:iéhna, HCGP} uoooo Criminal Appeal is preferred by the uV'eon\fiet--/_appe11ant/ accused through the Superintendent, V 4'_'Cer;t_Vra1--A'Pr'ison, Mysore. against the Judgment dt.17.7.2006 '"--._p;a_g$éd by the Addl.S.J & 9.0, FTC-III, Hassan in '4":"3,C.No.187/O3 convicting the appellant/ accused/convict for CRL.A.No.448/ 2007 the offences p / u Sections 302 8: 309 of IPC and sentencing .__hiIn to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay ﬁne of for the offence p/u/s.302 of IPC, in default of payI_I_ij"ent--.'of. accused shall undergo R! for 6 months and furthei*..Vsen:i'eneing..'t _ 0' him to undergo S.I for 6 months for the ~offen--ee o'f_ 00 IPC. The sentence of imprisonment shall run --concu'rrent'ij:-.__ :;_' This appeal coming on forahearing, At'11i__s * 0' RAG, J, delivered the following:-

QQDGMEN 1'; jg -- . 2 One Venkateshgowda coffee estate owner. The accuisedvis.working_:'ih tiie.'e-aatepi of the deceased as a Writer. that the arrears of salary was to be payablevbj' to him. In that regard, there _ were diﬁerences Vliaetween accused and the deceased. The iiranted to join the Workers' Union. But the deceased did"_notV.tiii§e the idea of the accused becoming member 0 at of thea'Work'ers":0'Union.

2. 24.07.2003 around 11.00 a.m., the accused and deaceasded were going together to the rubber plantation of the ..__"Vdeceased. During the course of walk, there was discussion. CRL.A.No.4-48/200'?

Deceased insisted the accueed not to join Werkem'. and he refused to pay the axrears of wages. jwas carxying a chopper. He became whenthe heed to his advice. The deceaseé::.A:ass_a2:1}?jedeetile .:

C]f}0P}}€I' on his shoulder. u;V3ic:3::{ied up a stone and hit the deceas#ei:iD'I11VVthe" chopper feﬁ down. The accused he hit the deceased with multiple of the deceased who was 'fZ;1ewafd.Vd't}:1'e ﬁéiseend came running. He found the accused' a chopper from the scene and the deceésetiv.wéis_ blood. The deceased was taken tgﬁgospitai 'Be11;.Hr__y:here he died. P.W.3 lodged a complaint » fhe vggiolice. The post mortem report shows that the H 2 £iccuoed".";iie<§.V'on account of multiple injuries to the vita} part aid the. eeéath is homicidal death. The accused is charged for do mg oﬂ?-since under Sections 302 and 309 ofIPC. The Trial Court ' convicted the accused. Hence, this appeal.

3. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused had to assault the deceased to save himself because it CRL.A.No.448/2007 was the deceased who first assaulted him with chopper,' "'-The counsel also referred to the statement made by V. during the course of cross--examination under "'S_ectiGni' 313: V' Cr.P.C.. wherein the plea of se1f--clef"ence«_ prosecution itself admits that the accused attested'. same day. He was examined by thedoctoi' it wound certiﬁcate discloses' that""'the'- aecusedt "has-dgsuffered incised injury on the shou1adei'_'and. "p1'.osecution does not give any elqllanation ithezideceased. On the other hand, the version of the accused with to between him and the deceasedivdbefote accused has sustained the injury in theu"q.ua;freV1d the deceased has assaulted the , .accusect:¢:.\2triti1 a cho'pHpev_1fLfIhe said facts clearly suggest that the 'V_'1_neid'en_t isvAcoveifed__by subsections (1) and (4) of Section 300 of 19¢. A

4. ..In=the circumstances, the conviction of the accused undefﬁection 302 of IPC is set aside. The accused is convicted $ection 304 Part I of EPC and sentenced to undergo R1 eE/ CRL.A.No.448/2007 for a period of 7 yeazs. The accused is entiticd for of set off for the period of sentence already u.ndeI~gon_¢;,""'* 2 .' L"

The appeal is partly anmved; age mxmsiggategi awe.' 'V > The fee of Amicus Curiae is;=ﬁxc'§1 at 1és,7;r§:{)<3j;i;'L_%A---.'1f'h'ej fees" "

to be paid by the State to th-$1 -

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court