✦ Karnataka High Court · 26 Sep 2011

Judgment · High Court · 2011

12 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

1.

€i ‘r t t • I • ) 4% 3 a. I Section 143r c ogni’anc c Section 14° fIP(4 and thi Tint ou thc ibo’c n mc I c141 ) brcsa I daic c dfocsact wnifuI ts’,cirb mm timc ant p ic common object of such asembii nffcc S noting and thin in tomm punsh thU undc r °c ti iithin rri cognwance t tic tat I a Sc ttifl ) I mn ittt I bed an rJf(j 1) f PC o That iou thc abo c named a uic c 3 afornaid date ttm and p icc Ix ing the mc mbcrs the atorc said unlaisful assc mbh in prosecution of tt common object of such aqscmbh acte armi I v dcadls eapons iw .ac , p IT ihai) (choppcr) ml ioicn si ommittcd an )ffcncc p i ‘4 14)fIPC 1 I ib Lith I c i 1 t oulc b a embcr of ii Is V I S ) ilicit. C’ti 1,turrs; iid tityic’ the Il)qL iiarncrl d’ c List d ci€tte 1ind iIi’’ ‘ ith the i i’ Pt irdcim.. dccc •‘b d V..s t i Ii€,.i.min • Tt i fluid I “11(1 tV aS 1e’itii •• • a. t •f t ‘. LISt d () J ‘t 1(f)’ Ii . ,,t. I ‘ i b • •t%’ ¾, i i f n (fl’ Ii’s It ..‘ ! p ,sh talILti s’..mitctI tt€ h4 holding a bamboo ‘vi k

mlii his (itt %tfll aid used \.‘. ‘ .‘vh Thc. assaulted the tic ceased With t41’sppcr on ins h, , liclIl(IS. ‘CLI at c’used V. ‘ a& sutit’’d tlic dci t .tsc’ ‘t’oden stick (in his ba k ii1’’ n ‘ii! tIit ati ‘Ne’t Ci mmmii miii cier in imitent ion; 1P lime de eased \ascutt t1iii

tilt thea! lIaflduH itt ‘ar an I a e ,‘.• t’ s : . . ‘e)fltflhittc ci flfl olience pwiish tn! nadt’m Si’% 11011 I % i-’ot iI’( hit’ l)1’tC1 tttion led ii ng ,‘ _‘ .; i. ‘ 31 fi ‘,li . . — •11 1:1 [ ‘lb •. • i’lt’ ‘ I I itt I .‘ () . i 0 I • • tt it i ‘h.i. s ciS iirtik C ,. 1 I) t P . ‘ ‘itt (i %(1 .( . ‘ 51 tt ir .‘‘‘);t’’ . I . It_Lilt • : • • . • qrj •r.• .‘ .‘. ; :‘ .11 I I • . I ‘ • ( •‘. oh • I . ‘II • . , ‘ ‘. , .1 “: I, I — * * a E - C - ( — - r * - — a — - — - J ( I - * t I J ‘ — - ( — - — J — I - — — - — — — _ C - — - - C — D ( — - : — — a / — - — - / — — C - - C C / J - - t ( - h T - ‘ — j E I 1 — C 1 t — ) _ - ( — J r I , - — — - — — — — , - f - * - — — J - a — — a a 9 — H a — — * a — C — — — * — 9 - — — — a 0 a - a - - a * ‘ — a - - * - - - 0 0 / - / — — — D a * / — * - — — — a * - - J — - a — a f a - a a r 7 a 2 a a — 2 0 a a a -- - a — - I — c — J — a 0 C a a * — a a - \ 0 — 0 — - _ ( a 0 a a * - — a 2 a — a 7 a a _ L — — — - - — - 9 9 — — — — a - — r — — - . - - - — a a t a — J — a 9 - f — a ( _ ( c - — — —N - - 0 4 - 4 C ( r C — 4 0 C — ( - - - 4 4 - - 0 - J r C 0 0 _ 4 — 4 - 4 C — — S — D 0 1 - J j 0 4 ( 1 4 . o - 4 ( * — — - 4 - — 0 1 r C 0 — — — Z I p - ) - 4 , - -C 4 C ( - 0 . C5 ( * * r C - 5 I - * h T C ( — f - - 4 C — 0 / 0 * — - - 4 I - 4 /c a - 1 y - 4 0 C 4 - 4 ( C ( 1 — 0 - 4 — 4 I 4 — : - 4 — 0 - 0 - 4 C ( - C 0 - - J I, that cwn iithout intimating thc supc non of thc hospit h took ‘tic ambu1ant and nat to the tiilacc nd rctchc it c I. t thcdcceaqeditk3Otm (‘lul i ‘c Icicil pitt isabo t I)to IlImsf it th csptil TI i. ‘I I’ ‘it th t PW I had infnrracd Ii pA e n ‘thatch aft there ‘no rferencc 13 sha that

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments