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

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B.VEERAPPA,V SRISHANANDA
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Appellant
Versus
UMESH – Respondent
CRL.A/1074/2016



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1074/2016

C/W

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183/2016

IN CRL. A. No.1074/2016

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

BY TIRTHAHALLI POLICE STATION-577432,

REPRESENTED BY

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

BENGALURU-560001.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR)

AND:

UMESH,

S/O OF SIDDAPPA GOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

2

OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O. HONNANI HUNASAVALLI,

TIRTHAHALI TALUK-577 432.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI NAGARAJ M BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI R. B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

****

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)

AND (3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.12.2015, PASSED BY

THE

II

ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT

AND

SESSIONS

COURT,

SHIVAMOGGA

IN

S.C.No.133/2013,

IN

SO

FAR

AS

NOT

CONVICTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE

UNDER SECTION 307 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.

IN CRL. A. No.183/2016

BETWEEN:

UMESHA,

S/O OF SIDDAPPA GOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

R/O. HONNANI HUNASAVALLI,

TIRTHAHALLI TALUKA

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 432.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI NAGARAJ M BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI R. B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

BY TIRTHAHALLI POLICE STATION-577432.

REPRESENTED BY

3

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,

BENGALURU-560001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR)

****

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.12.2015, PASSED BY THE II

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, SHIVAMOGGA IN

S.C.No.133/2013, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR

THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341, 504 AND 324 OF

INDIAN PENAL CODE.

THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J.,

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Criminal Appeal No.1074/2016 is filed by the State and

Criminal Appeal No.183/2016 is filed by the appellant/accused

against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

30.12.2015 made in S.C.No.133/2013 on the file of the II

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga. The State filed

the Appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The

appellant/ accused has filed the Appeal challenging the judgment of

4

conviction and order of sentence, sentencing him to pay fine of

`500/-, `5,000/- and `10,000/- with default clauses for the offences

punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 324 of the Indian Penal

Code, respectively.

2.

It is the case of the prosecution that, on 30.06.2012 at about

1.30 pm, when injured –Rajakamal/P.W.3 was going to his house

situated at Haralimata from Honnani on his motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-14/K-7205, the accused, in view of the previous

rivalry that P.W.3 supported his brothers and sisters in the

panchayath held in connection with the property dispute between

himself and his brothers and sisters, with an intention to kill the

P.W.3, wrongfully restrained him, abused him in filthy language and

assaulted on the chest and left arm of the P.W.3 with a sickle

causing grievous injuries and attempted to commit his murder. On

the basis of the complaint-Ex.P.1 lodged by P.W.1, Thirthahalli

police registered a case against the accused in Crime No.147/2012

for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 307 of the

Indian Penal Code and proceeded with the investigation. After

5

completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed

charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

3.

After committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the learned

Sessions Judge framed the Charge, read over

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 Back to top