SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Kar) 824

STATE OF KARNATAKA – Appellant
Versus
MAREPPA – Respondent


( 1 ) WE have heard the learned counsel on both sides at considerable length because the charge in this case is a serious one under Section 392 IPC and the learned Addl. SPP submits that apart from the victim PW3 that there are other two eyewitnesses PWs 4 and 7, who know the accused, who have identified him and despite all these three witnesses the trial Court has acquitted the accused. His submission is that the accused, who pretended to be a photographer and came to a traditional social ceremony for taking photographs, took advantage of the fact that the girl PW3 was sitting alone in front of the house, that he snatched all the three gold chains that she was wearing around her neck, one of which was a shot chain which was tied something like a choker and the other two were long chains hanging almost upto the waist. PW3 raised an alarm, the accused was chased, but he disappeared in the darkness. The learned Addl. SPP submits that this was a social function, that the accused is not a stranger, that the incident has been witnessed by PWs 4 and 7, who have corroborated the evidence of PW3 and that consequently, this is a case where a straight conviction ought to have been recorded.











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top