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

SRI H K ANANDA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.RP 1148/2012



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1148/2012

C/W.

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1185/2012

CRL.RP NO.1148/2012:

BETWEEN:

1 .

SRI H.K.ANANDA

AGED 57 YEARS

S/O LATE H. KRISHNAMURTHY

AGRICULTURIST

2 .

SRI GNANADATHA

AGED 59 YEARS

S/O LATE H. KRISHNAMURTHY

AGRICULTURIST

3 .

SRI DHARMAPALA H.K.

AGED 65 YEARS

S/O LATE H. KRISHNAMURTHY

AGRICULTURIST

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF

SEEKE VILLAGE

KANABUR 577 112

N.R.PURA TALUK

CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

& PETITIONERS

[BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W.

SRI JAGADISH BALIGA, ADVOCATE]

2

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY BALEHONNUR POLICE

CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT -577 112

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BENGALURU- 560001

& RESPONDENT

[BY SRI V.S.VINAYAKA, HCGP]

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.10.2012 PASSED BY THE

PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, CHIKMAGALUR IN

CRL.APPEAL NO.63/2010 AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE

JUDGEMENT

10.12.2007

AND

ORDER

DATED

23.03.2010

PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, N.R.PURA IN

C.C.NO.119/2007.

CRL.RP NO.1185/2012:

BETWEEN:

1 .

MR. SATHYA DEVA

S/O H.K. KRISHNA MURTHY

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

2 .

KESHAVA @ KESHAVA MURTHY

S/O SHESHAGIRI PRABHU

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

3 .

ASHWATHA NARAYANA

S/O SHASHAGIRI PRABHU

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

4 .

GANAPATHI

S/O SHASHAGIRI PRABHU

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE

3

THE R/O SEEKEY VILLAGE

KANABUR, N.R.PURA TQ.

CHIKMAGALORE-577134.

& PETITIONERS

[BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W.

SRI JAGADISH BALIGA, ADVOCATE]

AND:

THE STATE

THROUGH THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE

BALEHONNUR POLICE STATION

CHIKMAGALORE DISTRICT

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLCI PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BENGALURU- 560001

& RESPONDENT

[BY SRI V.S.VINAYAKA, HCGP]

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER

SECTION

397

OF

CR.P.C

PRAYING

TO

SET-ASIDE

THE

JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 10.12.2007 AND THE

ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 23.03.2010 PASSED BY THE CIVIL

JUDGE AND JMFC, N.R.PURA IN C.C.NO.120/2007 AND ALSO

JUDGMENT DATED31.10.2012 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING

OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, CHIKMAGALUR IN CRL.APPEAL

NO.73/2010 DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER

HEREIN.

THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS COMING ON FOR

HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Heard Sri Jagadish Baliga and Sri P.P.Hegde and the

learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) and perused the

records.

4

2.

These two Revision Petitions are filed against the

conviction

order

passed

in

C.C.No.119/2007

and

C.C.No.120/2007 whereby the accused persons in the said cases

were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 326,

324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and ordered to

undergo sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable

under Section 326 of IPC for a period of one year with fine of

Rs.3,000/- which was confirmed in Crl.A.Nos. 63/2010 and

73/2010 dated 31.10.2012.

3.

The brief facts of the case are as follows;

That on 05.02.2007 at about 11.30 a.m., in the

agricultural land bearing Sy.Nos.205, 206, 207 of Seeke village,

there was a scuffle between the revision petitioners in both the

cases. There was an assault made by both the groups and both

the groups approached the police and filed necessary complaint

before the jurisdictional police that is Balehonnuru Police Station

and registered the cases against the revision petitioners herein.

Thereafter, the cases were investigated and charge sheets came

to be filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The presence of

the accused persons was secured before the learned Trial

5

Magistrate, by taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences.

Charge was framed against the accused persons. The accused

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top