IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH,
Hameed, S/o. Edinab – Appellant
Versus
State By Bidadi Police, Represented By Spp. – Respondent
ORDER :
H. P. SANDESH, J.
1. This revision petition is filed praying this Court to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 24.01.2019 in C.C.No.1005/2011 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC at Ramanagara for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 114, 324, 323, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC , which is confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.4/2019 dated 26.02.2020 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara and prayed the Court to acquit the revision petitioners.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Shankarappa S appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel Sri P. Prasanna Kumar who is permitted to assist the State vide order dated 24.03.2025.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that the complainant was working as Junior Officer HR in M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd., Toyota Techno Park, Bidadi and allegation is made in the complaint that the accused persons with an intention to take away the life had caused bodily injuries to their Senior Management staff on 19.03.2011 at about 10.30 p.m. The members of the unlawful assembly started protest inside the Company and gathered
Ganesh Bhavan Patel V/s State of Maharashtra
Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar V/s Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
RMMALKANI vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
H.C. Karigowda @ Srinivasa and Others vs. State of Karnataka by Holenarasipura Town Police
State of A.P. vs. Punati Ramulu and others
MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER vs DHIREN GOPAL AND OTHERS
AMIT KAPOOR vs RAMESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER
STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs FATEHKARAN MEHDU
SANWAT SINGH & OTHERS vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN
The conviction was quashed due to procedural irregularities, evidentiary failures, and bias in police investigations, highlighting the need for stringent adherence to legal standards.
The importance of explaining injuries on the accused and the impact of unexplained injuries on the prosecution's case.
The revisional court cannot introduce additional documents not considered by the Magistrate, emphasizing the significance of judicial discretion and maintaining the integrity of original findings.
The trial court's acquittal based on technicalities disregarded substantial eyewitness and medical evidence, necessitating a retrial.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence, corroboration, fair investigation, and the fatal impact of non-examination of crucial witnesses and absence of essential documents in crim....
In criminal revision against acquittal, courts must show clear evidence of error or injustice for appeal. Acquittals are upheld unless substantial proof against accused emerges.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.