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

P.K.SHYAMSUNDAR, A.B.MURGOD
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Jatti – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellant:S.R. Bannurmath, (A.P.P). For the Respondent: M.V. Seshachala, Amicus Curiae.

JUDGMENT

P.K. Shyamsundar, J. - This appeal by the State arises out of and is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Karwar In S.C. No. 19/1989. The learned Sessions Judge, by an order made in that case on the 7th day of November. 1989, acquitted the accused of the offence levelled against him, acting under Section 334 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C. for short), extending to him the benefit of the exception contained in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), but directed the accused to be detained in safe custody until the wife of the accused examined in the case as P.W. 1 arrived before Court to take charge of the accused as ordered therein. We are told that the wife did appear before Court and took charge of her husband on 13.11.89 after executing a bond assuring the safe conduct of the accused. The State considers the acquittal of the accused to be somewhat unmerited and not merely that, it takes exception to the procedure adopted by the learned Judge in end-eavouring to brand the accused as an insane person just to work out an acquittal in his favour. The grievance made is that alias the accused himself not having pleaded the de

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