C.K.DASEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
LAWS(SC)-2014-7-43
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
July 15,2014
C.K.Dasegowda
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
ANIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-3-369] [REFERRED TO]M/S. KALAMANI TEX AND ANOTHER VS. P. BALASUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(SC)-2021-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. PONNACHANA K.SOMAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-269] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. PONNACHANA K.SOMAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-269] [REFERRED TO]
NANI GOPAL PAL VS. KANTI RANJAN PAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2018-2-167] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SHASHIKANT MOTIBHAI MACHHI [LAWS(GJH)-2017-2-79] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. PATEL DUSHYANTKUMAR @ BABO BHIKHABHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2017-2-179] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAM JUARI [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. MUKESH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-11-105] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. BHAGIRATH PATEL SON OF SHOBHALAL KURMI PATEL [LAWS(MPH)-2015-10-125] [REFERRED]
D REDDEPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-1502] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SAIYED ZAFAR HUSEN ANWAR HUSEN [LAWS(GJH)-2017-2-215] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MAHMAD SALIM VAJIR SHAIKH [LAWS(GJH)-2017-2-223] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. ANUP SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-682] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. PRADEEP AMARSINH @ AMUBHAI PARMAR [LAWS(GJH)-2017-1-107] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. SHASHI KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(P&H)-2019-8-78] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal is filed by the appellants questioning the correctness of the judgment and final order dated 11.08.2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 1256 of 2005 in setting aside the order of acquittal of the appellants passed by the trial court thereby imposing sentence of conviction on the accused for offences punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC for causing injuries on separate count.
(2.)Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find out whether they are entitled to the relief as prayed for in this appeal.
(3.)It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.8.1999, at about 7:00 a.m., PW-3 Kempanna had gone to the house of the complainant on a bicycle to take milk for his children. When the complainant and PW-3 were coming back, accused nos. 1 to 10 (A-1 to A-10) attacked them with deadly weapons. It is alleged by the prosecution that A-1 assaulted PW-3 with iron blade of a plough on his head. A-3 assualted PW-3 on his back and thigh. A-4 assualted PW-3 on both his legs with iron blade of plough. A-2 assaulted PW- 1 with iron rod on his left shoulder. A-6, A-8 and A-10 kicked PW-1. A-5 and A-7 assaulted Bhagyamma- PW-6 with iron blade of plough and A-9 kicked her.
(2.)Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find out whether they are entitled to the relief as prayed for in this appeal.
(3.)It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.8.1999, at about 7:00 a.m., PW-3 Kempanna had gone to the house of the complainant on a bicycle to take milk for his children. When the complainant and PW-3 were coming back, accused nos. 1 to 10 (A-1 to A-10) attacked them with deadly weapons. It is alleged by the prosecution that A-1 assaulted PW-3 with iron blade of a plough on his head. A-3 assualted PW-3 on his back and thigh. A-4 assualted PW-3 on both his legs with iron blade of plough. A-2 assaulted PW- 1 with iron rod on his left shoulder. A-6, A-8 and A-10 kicked PW-1. A-5 and A-7 assaulted Bhagyamma- PW-6 with iron blade of plough and A-9 kicked her.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.