Back
H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD, T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
State of Karnataka Represented By the Police Sub-Inspector, Haliyal Police Station – Appellant
Versus
Mohan Chandrakanth Ghadi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, J.
The State has challenged the Judgment dated 31.08.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.184/2013 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar sitting at Sirsi itinerary at Yellapur (for short, ‘the appellate Court’) acquitting the accused No.1/respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.
3. The case pleaded by the prosecution is that, P.W.3-Yallari Omanna Ghadi is a resident of Khamadolli village of Haliyal Taluka. He has constructed a house in a land jointly owned by him and his brothers. The accused No.1 herein is the grandson of brother of P.W.3. On 18.03.2010 at about 8.30 a.m., the accused No.1 along with accused No.2-Ramchandra dug up a pit for construction of septic tank in the land in possession of P.W.3. He requested the accused not to dig the soak pit. The accused did not oblige, objected, took up a quarrel against him. With a common intention to assault him, accused Nos.1 and 2 have wrongly restrained him, abused him in filthy language and insulted him
Point of Law : Evidence let in by the prosecution has to be assessed carefully and cautiously and it should not be brushed aside. [Para 30]
The court upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC based on consistent eyewitness accounts, while acquitting one appellant due to evidence of his absence during the incident.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and consistent evidence in criminal cases, as well as the need for corroboration in material particulars by reliable t....
Point of law: There may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has ....
Conviction upheld under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony despite minor contradictions; intention to murder not established.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC, affirming that related witnesses' testimonies are credible and sufficient for establishing direct involvement in the crime.
Intent to kill under Section 307 IPC necessitates specific evidence; absence of concrete proof results in acquittal for grievous intent while confirming lesser charges.
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
