Back
K.SOMASHEKAR
Jagannatha @ Muniyappa S/o Late Nanjappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka By Hoskote Police Station – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment emphasizes the requirement for proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and reliance on consistent and reliable evidence for conviction (!) . - The trial court's conviction under Section 304A IPC was set aside due to insufficiency and unreliability of evidence, leading to acquittal on all charges (!) (!) . - The appellate court acquitted the accused of Section 304A IPC, Section 429 IPC, and Section 135 of the Karnataka Electricity Act, 2003, and allowed the appeal, with bail bonds, if any, cancelled (!) . - The case facts include death by electrocution of the deceased and a dog, with contested evidence regarding unauthorized electricity connection and inquest procedures (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The evidence relied upon by the prosecution was found inconsistent and not corroborated by independent witnesses, contributing to acquittal (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court notes lack of cogent, positive, consistent, and acceptable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the alleged offences (!) . - The inquest and documentary evidence (Exs. P1–P5, MO's) were scrutinized for reliability and chain of custody, influencing the verdict (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The appellate judgment references the conviction and sentence order dated 23.07.2010 in Spl.C.No.102/2006 being set aside (!) . - The appellant was represented by Sri. Dinesh Kumar K. Rao; the respondent by Sri. Rohith B.J. HCGP (!) .
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence rendered by the Court of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore rural district, Bangalore in Spl.C.No.102/2006 dated 23.07.2010 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for one month.
2. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under:
It is stated in the complaint filed by one Dairy Muniyappa that deceased Munikrishna being his son after grazing the cattle while he was returning to his house from the Government land at around 6.30 AM on a path road adjacent to the garden land of accused – Jagannath in Sy.No.41 where he had put barbed fencing to the land and had taken direct electric power from the main line, when the deceased was proceeding, he came into contact with barbed fencing live wire and died due to electrocution on 18.1.2006 at 6.30 a.m. and one dog belonging to Ramanjinappa also died at the spot.
3. In pursuance of the death of deceased – Munikrishna and also the dog, the father of decease
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
