Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By Audugodi Ps vs Sanny @ Srinivasa @ Appi on 5 August, 2010
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao, Jawad Rahim
I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 05"' DAY OF AUGUST 20I,O1,fg PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE K.SREED_HAIi§~-.F§AO;" E' A N D I I ' I THE HON'E5LE MRJOSTICEJAWAD RAHIM " I CRL. APPEAL N"O..,:V"'1l72./2'C) S» BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATA::<A BY AUDUGODI P.S. ' _ , _ ' 'APPELLANT (BY SRIN:S.SAMiPAGI,RAMAIvAH,, 'H(:GP) AND: 1- SANNY @iI:SRINIVASA '[email protected]'PPI, SO,N'O,F _NA.RA--Y,A'NAP_Pé'., AGED Ai3C.!JTF.26=,.YEARS, "NVO'.I7,' APP-A31 LANE, BHAKSHI GARDEN, COiIfTONPET',FBAVN_GALORE. ' '- RESPONDENT (BY P/S,,,A:IAwMENS CHAMBERS KEMPARAIU) >i=** ._ FILED U/S 378 (1) & (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO.__4GRANT=_.LEEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENTDATED 28~O2~2005 PASSED BY THE 53.0, EAST '=..._'*..,TRACi< _ (SESSIONS) 3UDGE--V, BANGALORE CITY, IN A " ._S.C...NO.637/04 A ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT / ACCLISED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SS 354 AND 307 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, I "'E§REEDHAR RAO J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: %/ l J JUDGMENT
The material facts of the case discloses that Sangeetha Jain »-- PW4 and Smt Bhavarl Bai injured. One Ladulal Jain is the Co;fnplain.3'n't'"husband" of PW3 and father of PW4. Accused was eirhployled 'a'sfd..rit;-::er by PW1. He was removed from service.VAccus.ed._HiVns3isted.at* payment of Rs.10,000/-- as co_n1'p.ei:--s_ation' his} removal from the job. PW1 refused _to"-_pa;y nt.
2. on 4o.2v§;-08-iioogi.i'..at~«.i'oej3oVA:9;' Complainant and his son we_reVl.ia.wa'\}_t:<oVrh_.Vthehouse, accused visited the house ofthe_Corhpl-aihant"a«r1"d made pretense of innocence and asked fjor'..,drinl"<inc_"; water. When PW4 opened the door iat'acVc"Li'sVeci~."i'Atré'ss passed' into the house assaulted PW4 with s--l<vnVi._i"-eplanTd~..a"isoc~assaulted PW2 with same knife. Accused is Cha-t_ged_.=fo:rVl'4t'he offence committed u/s 452, 354, 307 & 324 trial Court convicted the accused for the offence A eJ)'s/$52 and 324 {PC and acquitted of the offence u/s 354 it 307. The State is in appeal.
5%,
3. PW2 sustained injuries on the face by the side of nose and PW4 sustained injuries on her right hand'a'fi'ng.er. The motive for the offence is stated that the 'wads. disgusted for not payment of compensation..f.or"~w.ifen5i:ovaiiof, his job. Therefore, because of IgrouS4ejj.aga'in.s't:
accused has assauited PW2 anda PW4';._ The said aulsoj", does not suggest the intentioniioiffovutraging. of PW2 and PW4 and the theiacycused has intention to cause'murd'er,_V:"A..VV if i
4. In;"th§¢f;;.i:i¥§iiei'r\ii._ofi order of the trial Court accused for the offence u/s 45.2'A'and' him of the offence u/s 354 and_3o?,i;*sbu5d and proper and does not caH an "'i'nitVerferén'ce'i;afixccordiingly, appeai is dismissed. Sd/-
Judge Sdfln Judge