Dismissed

Mr Mari Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2020CRL.RP/319/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision Petition No.319/2020, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the petition at the admission stage. The court held that the trial judge correctly relied on the eye-witness statement sufficient to frame the charge, finding no error warranting interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed at the admission stage without allowing the application for discharge.

Mr Mari Gowda Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.319/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Mr. Mari Gowda, S/o. Late Sidde Gowda, Aged about 41 years,

¶9

Mr. Gaviraja, S/o. Late Sidde Gowda, Aged about 37 years,

¶10

Both Agriculturists and R/of Konaldoddi Village, Maralavadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District – 562 159.

¶11

…Petitioners

¶12

(By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, Advocate)

¶13

AND:

¶14

State of Karnataka, By Harohalli Police, Ramanagara District, Through the State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Smt. K.P. Yashodha, HCGP)

¶15

¶16

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr. P.C praying to set aside the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in Spl.C.No.10/2019 and consequently discharge the petitioners No.1 and 2 in Cr.No.307/2018 and now pending in Spl. C. No.10/2019 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara for offences p/u/s 302, 109 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(2) (v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act and etc.,

¶17

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court through video conference made the following:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent.

¶20

Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2020 passed in Spl.C.No.10/2019 by the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, dismissing their application filed under Sections 227 r/w 239 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

Petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4 in the charge sheet filed by respondent alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 109 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(2) (v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶22

¶23

The learned trial Judge has relied on the

¶24

statement of Cw3 and the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 and has come to the conclusion that the above material sufficiently establish the involvement of accused Nos.3 and 4 in the commission of the alleged offences.

¶25

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that except the statement of Cw3 there is no other material to show the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged commission of offence; hence, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.

¶26

As per the case of the prosecution, Cw3 was an

¶27

eye-witness to the incident. Cw3 in his statement has reproduced the disclosure made by the deceased and has stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted the deceased at the instigation of accused Nos.3 and 4. This statement is relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no material to frame charge against the petitioners. Consequently, it cannot be said

¶28

¶29

that the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted without any legal evidence.

¶30

In that view of the matter, I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Consequently, petition being not fit for admission, is dismissed at the admission stage.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

Mr Mari Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Mari Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mahindra Mishra Vs Sri M B Patil

Manjegowda Vs Channarayapatna Town Police Station

S.A. Ramdas Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr.Sunki Rajendra Reddy Vs Income Tax Department

Sri a R Kotrappa Vs Sri a Karibasappa

Manoj Kundar Vs State of Karnataka