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

PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU
SRI HALAPPA – Appellant
Versus
STATE BY RIPPONPET POLICE – Respondent
CRL.RP 843 2012



Crl.R.P.No.843/2012

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.843/2012

BETWEEN:

1.

SRI HALAPPA

S/O. MANJAANAIKA

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

2.

SRI RAGHU @ RAGHAVENDRA

S/O. SRI HALAPPA

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

3.

SRI HARISHA

S/O. SRI HALAPPA

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT JAMBLI

ANEGADDE GRAMA

HOSANAGAR TALUK

SHIMOGA DISTRICT- 577 201

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI G.S.BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE BY RIPPONPET POLICE

HOSANAGAR TALUK

SHIMOGA DISTRICT

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT BUILDING

BANGALORE- 560 001

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B.J.ROHITH, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING

TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF

Crl.R.P.No.843/2012

2

SENTENCE

DATED

01.03.2008

PASSED

BY

JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HOSANAGAR IN C.C.NO.716/2002

AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.07.2012 PASSED

BY

THE

PRINCIPAL

SESSIONS

JUDGE,

SHIMOGA

IN

CRL.A.NO.43/2008.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR

FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence

passed against them for the offences punishable under

Sections 504, 324, 326 read with Section 34 of IPC, the

petitioners have preferred the above revision petition.

2.

The petitioners were accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 in

C.C.No.716/2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Hosanagar. For the purpose of convenience, the

petitioners will be referred to as per their ranks before the

trial Court.

3.

Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 were tried in

C.C.No.716/2002 by the trial Court for the offences

punishable under Sections 504, 324, 326 read with Section

34 of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by

Ripponpet police, Hosanagar Taluk in Crime No.150/2001

of their Police Station.

Crl.R.P.No.843/2012

3

4.

Crime No.150/2001 was registered against the

petitioners and accused No.2 Girijamma on the basis of

the complaint filed by PW.1 as per Ex.P1. It was alleged in

the complaint that on 25.12.2001 at 3.30 p.m. in

Anegadde, the accused were removing the fence erected

by PW.1 to their land. It was further alleged that when

PW.1 questioned that, the accused assaulted him and his

wife, children with clubs and machete causing them

grievous injuries.

5.

Admittedly, accused No.1 Halappa and the

complainant PW.1 Byrappa are the brothers. Accused No.2

is wife and accused Nos.3 and 4 are sons of accused No.1.

PWs.6 and 7 are the sons of PW.1 and PW.8 is the wife of

PW.1.

6.

On receiving the complaint Ex.P1, CW.12

Sri Srinivasa, Police Sub-Inspector of Ripponpet police

station registered the first information report in Crime

No.150/2001 against accused Nos.1 to 4 and handed over

the investigation to PW.9 the then Police Sub-Inspector of

Ripponpet Police Station. PW.9 conducted the investigation

Crl.R.P.No.843/2012

4

and filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1, 3 and 4

alone for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324,

326 read with Section 34 of IPC. Based on the further

statement

of

PW.1,

he

dropped

accused

No.2

Smt.Girijamma while filing the charge sheet.

7.

The trial Court on taking cognizance of the

offences, registered the case in C.C.No.716/2002 and tried

accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 for the charges punishable under

Section 504, 324, 326 read with Section 34 of IPC.

8.

The case of the prosecution is as follows:

(i)

There was dispute between PW.1 Byrappa

complainant party and the accused party wit

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