Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka, vs Raja Hussain S/O Mabusab Kalasapur, on 4 July, 2011
& IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4%) DAY OF JULY BOLT BEFORE as THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE/A.S: PACHHAPURE: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 24.00 /2010 . BETWEEN: The State of Karnataka' Represented by.Addi. State Public Prosecutor: . Office of the Advocate: Geneial: High Court Circuit. 'Bench' Unit, Dharwad; "Ubrough Koppat. Tow Mn Police,. Police Station. Co : 7 PETITIONER le, Raja Hussein Mubusab Kalasapur ' Biscuit Bhatti, Ban dr: a Maharashtra. Qf, 5usab 'Rasoolsab Kalasapur, W/o. Miabusab Kalasapur, 60 years Oce: Hou ischoid, R/o. ever Urs Colony, ma Koppal .. RES SPONDE 'N ns: (BY SRILANAND R. KOLLI. ADV., FOR.RI iminal Revision petition' 'is' Jjiled 397 read ih FOL Cof Cr Pew creas at the records fromC eM. Soppal iin be ealled'for an d be . same fresh for vatstoction cand for-correcting the legality or propriety of finditrg ef the' erder: dated 09.02.2009
in erecting the. application filed under Section 323 6f4PC and set aside the Order dated 9.2.2009 passes by 'the "CUM, Koppal in C.C.N0.53/2005 and~confirt mation. "order passed by the Se SSLORS* Judg re, Koppal and "ELC, "petition ceming on, for admission this mace-ihe Fol OWING:
Trough the mattér'is posted for admis ssion, with. the consent of the learned counsel! for both . the parties, it is taken up for final hea ring.
"2. -.Ehe. State in this revision petition has the orders of the courts below, refusing the request of the State to commit the of the prosecution witness disc 'ad
3. The State was filed an application under Section 323 Cr.P.C. stating that evidence. of the prosecution witnesses discloses ari of under Section 304(B) IPC, whi ch is exelis sively . triable by the Sessions Cou rt and* t hérefore, he request was made by th o.Sta Le | to co mamit. ch c matter to the Court of Sessions:
4. The learned. Magistrate by a detailec order rejected thee-request, holding that the deccased sustained \burns accidentally. The finding of.the 'triab court has been upheld by the Pirst) Revisivwal Courtuic. by the Sessions Judge in Cri. R.PeNo 10/2009 Ss "hi gorpreyod hy the ordors s f both tae
5. Aggerreved by the orders of both the me courts-below, the present prevision petition has "OB ee refi be de .
6.0 have heard the learned High Court mo Governmen t Pleader and the learned counsel for i. Admittedly, there are no eve witnesses to the incident and the COD investigation reveals q that the deceased-Shalhajan Begum was burnt accidentally. Both the courts below have... given finding of fact, that the death was ac cide n tal» le is in these circumstances, thet the trial C6 ' Bt determined to proceed a gainst al He ac cused under Section 498-A reads with: 34 oF, IPC nd under Section 3a nd 4 of DP. Ac t. TH e Stale has not made any such gro and sto : warrant any interference i"
facts. rendered by the courts below.
In thatsview of-the matter, this petition has Rins/