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

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B.VEERAPPA,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
JAYANTH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY – Respondent
CRL.A/1620/2018



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1620/2018

BETWEEN:

1.

JAYANTH

S/O KANNAN,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

UPS SHIPPING WORK,

R/AT NO.563, 1ST CROSS,

ANNIYAMMA TEMPLE, SIDDAPURA,

BANGALORE-560 011.

2.

SRI MANI

S/O GOVINDARAJU,

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

R/AT NO.171, DAYANANDA NAGAR,

JAYANAGAR ‘T’ BLOCK,

BANGALORE-560 011.

3.

SRI VETRIVELU

S/O IYENGAR,

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

R/AT INDRAGANDI SLUM,

JAYANAGAR 9TH BLOCK,

JAYANAGAR,

BANGALORE-560 011.

...APPELLANTS

2

(BY SRI MOHAN KUMAR D. ADVOCATE FOR A-1 AND A-2;

SRI RAJESH RAI K., ADVOCATE FOR A-3)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

BANNERUGATTA POLICE STATION,

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BANGALORE-560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO

SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF

SENTENCE

DATED

30.08.2018

PASSED

BY

THE

III

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU

RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL IN S.C.NO.5057/2013 -

CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 FOR THE

OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 324, 326 AND 307

READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND ETC.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL

HEARING THIS DAY, B. VEERAPPA, J., DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The appellants-accused have filed the present

Criminal appeal against the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2018

passed in Sessions Case No.5057/2013, on the file of the

III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru

3

Rural District sitting at Anekal, convicting the appellants-

accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of

IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for

life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and also sentencing

them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years

and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence

punishable under Section 326 of IPC and to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of One year and to pay

fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under

Section 324 of IPC.

2.

It is the case of the prosecution that, on

24.03.2011, midnight at 12.30 a.m., at Kaggalipura

Road, behind Sri Shaneshwara Temple, in view of

previous enmity, the accused quarrelled with P.W.6-

Complainant-Venkatesha and in order to commit murder

took him to the said place wherein accused Nos.1, 2 and

3 stabbed the victim on his chest, left hand and all over

his body and thereafter accused No.1 stabbed on victim’s

4

left hand 3-4 times by the same knife and thereby

caused grievous injuries. The injured got admitted to

the Victoria Hospital for treatment and the Police

recorded the statement of the injured in the presence of

treated doctor and thereafter registered a case against

the accused persons for the offences stated supra.

3.

After taking cognizance of the aforesaid

offences, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the

case to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge

framed the charges against the accused persons and

read over the same to the accused, but the accused

persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.

In order to prove the case, the prosecution in

all examined 12 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.12 and got

marked documents at Exs.P.1 to P.10 and material

objects as M.Os.1 & M.O.2. After completion of the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned

5

Sessions Judge recorded the statement of the accused

persons as contemplated under Section 313 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.). The

accused persons denied all the incriminating evidence

adduced against them and they did not choose to adduce

any defence evide

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