Back
S. RACHAIAH
Kalyani @ Kallappa Jakapure, S/o. Shivalingappa Jakapure – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka, Through Madan Hipparga P. S. , Kalaburagi – Respondent
ORDER :
The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.08.2014 in Criminal Case No.581/2009 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Aland and also its confirmation order dated 03.01.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.34/2014 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, wherein the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 and 504 OF Indian Penal Code.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant is the resident of Darga Shiroor and he was doing motor winding work and it was his livelihood. It is stated in the complaint that on 19.07.2009 at about 4-00 p.m., when he was in his house, his wife had informed him that, the accused had scolded her, when she had been to bring firewood. After hearing the same, the complainant searched for the accused and he found that the accused was standing in front of the shop of one Rayappa Ghanti. The complainant went near the shop and asked the accused as to why he had scolded his wife. There was exchange of the words taken place between them and it was pacified at that time.
3. It is further alleged that on 20.07.2009, when the comp
Point of law: Courts below committed error in not considering the said aspect, the impugned judgment has been passed, which is erroneous and illegal and same is liable to be set aside.
Inconsistencies in the evidence and failure to properly appreciate the material on record can lead to a manifest error of law, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
Point of Law : Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. cannot act as a post office as the Magistrate has to apply his mind with regard to the fact as to whether the cas....
Cognizance of offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act can only be taken on the complaint of the authorized officers mentioned in Section 55, and the complaint should be filed in consonance with....
Minor discrepancies in witness testimony do not invalidate a conviction under Section 324 IPC when the evidence is otherwise consistent.
Revisional courts should only interfere with lower court judgments in cases of clear perversity; otherwise, decisions regarding evidence are upheld.
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
