Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J
SMT. GEETA W/O ADAVAYYA PUJAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and the premise of the revision petition. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments of the parties regarding the discharge application. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. description of incidents leading to the case and proceedings. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. judicial observations on instigation and the required elements for a conviction. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. conclusion of the court regarding the lack of merit in the petition. (Para 11) |
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 have argued in support of the impugned order.
6. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against them for the aforesaid offences. Before the trial Court, accused Nos.1 to 4 had filed an application seeking discharge which has been allowed vide order impugned.
“12. … Even in we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased “to go and die” that itself does not constitute the ingredient of “instigation”. The word “instigate” denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, t
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
