Bhimsha vs The State Of Karnataka By Humnabad ... on 23 October, 2008

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Bhimsha vs The State Of Karnataka By Humnabad ... on 23 October, 2008

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

sw-ou.nvr'1w°-ui'ar1 .....~m Wm. W mmnmm mam (mum ow KARNMAKA H561-E mum' cw mmamrm Ham couwﬁﬁ

IN THE HIGH coum" OF KARNA:TfA;(A A T 1  

CIRCUIT 8ENCH._:'A'fj é;rLQAIésA *  3   7

DATED THIS THE 23??_L>A%v%r§F ocToa%Eak%20os k L %

   .

VS/oKal.1appa "

Age v Agrictiltiz p

- .. R/0 I¥I3,z1(ii1<;':za"Vil1age H*um11abad._ Tami:

V i.B:dar_Dism¢'£."' Q :A:ji1,?i S:'5:--Ka!1é}pPa Age 2_9 years Qctr" :" Agxiculture " Rio Handikera Village Humnabad Taluk V Bidar Diatxict.

aEFAt?i2Ekk%A:%%% THE HON'BLE MRJ4.)$TI'¢EV"'MO§é.A#§l.j'VSH.ANTANAGOUDAR gggmmaa, asmsse/goo5 , Appeilants (By Sri Avinash A Uplcmkar, Adv.,) _.,_ ._ ..-..,..n .._.v...u W m.m.mNM:Ae\A mun cuuxr cw WMAIAM was cougar as KARNATAKA Hum mum And:

The State of Karnataka By Humnabad Police Bidar Rep by S.P.P., High Court Building .V ' '~ . «. Bangalorcrl. " sV»";'.iV§espo11:1en£_ {By smx. Anuradha [}csa1,'VuLii.ti_'(i1. $.19.' This V-A_1jpc'a1A 1s'1ﬂcd"-under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against thtig judg:21ex;t"zIat§:d 539-7-2005 passed by the 19.0., I+"§_'C3-i_§;' in , s.c;N¢;'4'/ 2000 convicting the appeIIz3iits_=4aéc'{}':;ed"-_Vjfor. _ t3r1é"v.: offences punishable under Sect:io11,323 326 of"IPC ¢.tc., ._ coming on for hearing this day, the dé1i:V'{¢3I'8d'th,__6 fsllowing :

'"JvDGKsNr appeal is ﬁled by the convicted accused judgment ans order (}fCOI}ViCtiO1'1 passed on 2005, by the learned District 8; Sessions ' " }:J11 (,;ig€, Guibarga, in Sessions Case No.4,!20{}0. Accused txfic-id Ibr the offences punishable under Sections 326, 504 and 30'? I"/W. Section 34 of IPC. \'»//A) 2: nnwrlt » wnvlurn-Irnnl uwrwa\I:'ur'|Ir"l\I\l"\ % lI\.7li '9bu\IEJi\I: 'MI!' RIQKEVHHHWH !'1I\3'f1 -4- seeing the assault, the daughter of the ----~ PW»-2 Vidyavathj came there to V' ﬁne instigation of accused NQ';1"; "s.c(_:L1Aseg:1' ' (épiicﬂszlii No.2) assaulted on the of talwar. Consequently,' itljiiiies. According to ."t.'rg(_: sccused had assaulted Pws. 1 and_ ::ss»s}ithsa:T%i:i.1s:::ion to commit their murder; ' " X *

3. In ordejﬁ' tciv :)1'éi.fe ths fjfssecuﬁon in all examinsd 14 Witimfssss -.:ﬁ1a%.fked 11 documents and two materisd Lo'bjsc::su. ' 'V injured Witnesses. PWs.6, '7 eye to the incident; who have .Vf11§%:3§£1"11Qstilé.~. 4, 5 and 12 are the mahazar the spot panchansma and seizure '_ Exs.P--2 and P3 respectively. PW'~»8 is the ifwho treated PWs.1 ans 2 and issued wound sun-re -5- ceriziticate as per Ex.P--'7. PW--1U is th¢v~.V.iif3;festigating Oﬁicer. PWs.i1, 13 and :4 am who involved in the investigation. u '

4. The trial aI'tt§r.

Nos. 1 to 3 for the Sections 504 and 307* pr and convicted accused Nos. 1 85 2 herein lbf' J<)ii_'<_§2r:;r:§iSV' fpiinishable under Sections 2: wwrvw\u I§£"IrM'%.l"'|¥iP'\E\J"$ l"'I!M'a'l&"I Kuhlﬁlﬁi KJI" §'%.H!§I'M-\:Al\H 324 and 326 r/wf11s¢¢t:ipth';,:y} them to nridergo rigorou$ _ period of 6 movraths for the offence gﬁnrggshgbié Eéection 324 1'/W. Sectiovg_1_34 and rigorous imprisonment for a and to pay fine of Rs.2,50o/-

e;;u:1;%tbr thekgtzzéﬁtféi."_1ga;1%:it§hab1e under Section 326 r/w. Setfﬁon detault clause. 'I'h& trial (301111 ;airec:¢a that both the sentences to run ,.5;:gj+1iC2t1:1'<§nﬂy and the sentence already undergone by ...n.._..m ...vu.u W ewmmnm mew mum" as KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 0; KARNATAKA ::§}Em W H COURT .5, them shall be set off. The trial Court acqxﬁtfed accused No.2 of the oﬁences alleged against ii

5. The prosecufgioifi 1'. __ evidence of PWs.}. and' 2 dﬁlpport are injured eye it may be mentioned _ A. A[}idionka.r, learned counsel A V the appellants fairly submits cannot escape the punishabie for the "$25 of :90. However, accord;%;1g__td has not proved its case beyond réasdllablé i'espect of accused No. 1 is.vconcer.r_1éd.dA.

Tlif': by Smtﬁnuradha Desai, le;1§;'t'1t':d Add]; on behaif of the respondent .1 dcpesed that §>W~--i2 -- his daughter is Z " ' A7'...:;:1A:;'Li:{=iedf.t9";3cCi1$ed Nd}. and there was a diﬁ'erence of vbéﬁeen the two aiter two years of the marriage. 55:?"-ix/f _,,J -3- In that context, a complaint has been against all the three accused as all the. » were harassing PW~2. In view}: of-.tl1fe saine;- ' continued between the 'On 'griape incident, while ~1 2 shop of Saclanand at No.2 (already acquitted byﬁlie " 1 and 12 in ﬁlthy No.3 assaulted PWs.1 suifered simple injuries : ''Us1;1tlefed gievous injuries. Accused No.1 " igisﬁgated accused No.3 to Vasgaulp _l".l[s. After the incident, PW-1 has legged" t31e._V4c9pu:1jjiaint as per §§3x.l'~I. In the cross- iv"a..__V_exam'inét'iii0n' ef'j_PW~l, nothing worth is elicited so as to _discard his evidence. However, it is elicited in the cross- that there is rivalry between the parties V' {hat three cases are foisted against the accused. m\..rwuas\i wa muwwnvwtirwiuwt ansvuu uwuna mmwwmlmmn E1|\.'.'.!8'1 MQJUK! WV AHKNAIMKM WIUM CWUKE K}? K&KNA1AKA .. ouwuru .3-

7. The evidence of PW~--1 is fully "the evidence of PW~--2, who has also dep0sed..e§1~ evidence of PW» 1. She has K No.3 assaulted PW~1 as as," her at that point of time, No. accused No.3 to assault onvliet. _ is deposed by PW- 2 that because oi'v'.t}1e j:ass,zg.ce,;1t'.«'b3f: No.3, she sustained' 'of€ :.1_eft_...hggmd: """'Even in the Cross- .. -mwouarwlxi g.-.3' nnnn:-unsxn nsura uuuna we m~w'.NA§AE%.A HIGH CﬁL}URT Q? KARNAYAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEGW COURT examination, %_she.;*t-:iierate_s'Vf,ﬁe 'mirierayirts of the accused Nos.1 and . --

8. Thus, if elearAiit'(§i1i the evidence of these two tf1ét'" it was accused No.3 who assiaauited' = 2. Consequently, they have % "~*g$1f}exeti..eee11;ai§§;' As is clear from the complaint " ".--1«E;;_._I:'~1,VLacc:jsed No.2 (who is acquitted by the trial allegedly abused PWs.1 and 2. A bare of the complaint Ex.P-1 discloses that the %L""«.le1iegations made against accused Noel and 2 are we run u---«. no mm mm .9- almost similar in nature. The trial accused No.2, against whom similar 'aiiegatidiis' made as made against: aceirsved to convict accused No.1. ».H_aviIig.. 131::

found in Ex.P--1, ceupieéV"e'e.\%?ith ti1e..eVei:;e1deeVVet" I-'Ws. V1 and 2, the j1zd§11..;;':;*1ts_ .\:ii's.convVietien recorded against accused No. 1V ._

9.5 The gieposed that PW~2 has it? wwwa\I V_.,..,' mmw..mm nauﬁ euum W mmnmm men com': 0? KARNATAXA men comm es mmnmm HEGH cause' sustained as, she has suffered ﬁeeetufe' whereas, PW-1 has sustained 'oneuxsimpleu The doctor has deposed lacerated wounds 1 ).

if had used the chopper, which is a the injured would have sustained 0%" iﬁjuries. As the injured has sustained ﬁgzounds, learned eounsei for the appeﬂants is '. in making his submission that the assault Imist have been made by a club. Added to it, the 1'' 2%' Xvi LU!..¥KH $1)?' Ki-\W.NIMﬁ¥%ﬂ Ms-31.3%" klU££§{%'A'§Jh_:Kﬂ§(NME£kE§M mt.-;»w %o€»%.JéM¥ Mi?" B§.MKNﬁ\EﬂﬂM ruuw mwum U?" RHKNHKRNA HIUE1 uwuiw war Iu«wai\u=-Lemma rnwn MWUWI ...§(}..

doctor in his examin3.tion---in-chief, has stated. the injuries must have been caused by object.

10. In this context; sgji counsel appearing for the stick which is oooimission of offence is 3. the context of villagers.' are used in day-

today._.li fe eherefone, it may not fall wit}; oeedly Weapon. The same is controVeftedVV"i:)}}'V Desai, learned A<idl.SPP _»»e;--i'ppeaIjngV"ibr.t}H1_eérespondent by submitting that even if ' .. 3 as a weapon for assaulting, the sagme may " . . fall category of dangerous weapon. Be that es. ﬁiey, having regard to the nature of the injuries " 'T end as the victim has suﬂered a gievous hurt, which is caused voiuntarily by the accused by "using some weapon (as the user of taiwar is in doubt), in my f"v'""> § 2mm" 0%" mEemm.m<:.a. mom coumﬁoﬁ mmpgmm Maw'-3 kmumg W m.....W,,,,...mm_ H

-11..

considered opinion, that accused No.3 has committed the oifcnce punishable under Section "As aibrementioned, no case is made out No.1 by the prosecution.

At this stage, ..

counsel for the ._ the wixocident has occzurred about tho spur of the moment. time, the accused must their family members ﬂ4l(:I"].i(:I*lCY may be shown to the of the same, the foilowing order 1'-1a<1e~V: ., V' "

judgxnent; and order of conviction . 'A'féVcorded against accused No.1 is set aside. Accused No.1 is acquitted of all the charges leveiled against him.

6)) The conviction recorded against accused No.3 (i.e., appellant No.2 --- Aljun 3/o rxwunu E '&'I"w.rlI*mu1\'bb'4v2z Mlwm MQJWKE WV ¥\f'§lV{lW.P"MiWhI\ﬁ'\ H"HL3'f"é wwuwg wa mwwnmammnmnww a :

Kallappa herein) for the oﬁerzee punishable under Section 326 of set aside. However, he is the offence punishable 324 and 325(¢1pc§ghqane¢s¢g¢uggc¢a";

to undergo one month 1"()_r°».:: the etfences and ﬁgs '(ji'10V',f;,)(}()/-, in deiaiﬁf;':%.. ~-._of he is sentenced to' for a of months» e in f1i::e"'ti1e entire' amount of fire namely Vidyavathi.

accordingky.

5'?

'vz_,/» mbmm $HANTA.HAGOUDAR) JUDGE Sd/~ V' *bIc/bsn, IUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court