Maritammappa Yankappa Alakatti v. The State of Karnataka

Judgment

1 . f t 4 € ) 0 i U H i I D C I c H i c D C L D C ) 0 H - i c D D C * C 0 i c H I ) 0 D C D C i c ) i C D C i c i c i c ( ) 0 a I I H - L D I a D - I C D C - L D 1 D C 0 H C - D C H - L D I ) 0 H 0 D C D C : i C H ) I - r ) ( C D C D C C H L D D C g H i c i c i c i c L D i c i D L D ) I C H f C i U D C H - S ) 0 i c i c L D D i I i c l 0 H H 5 — t C I C ) i c D C D C i c 2 L D C — L D L D i 5 r - i D C — D C D C 0 r c C O i c H 9 D C D C I H D C i i ç ) ) f C C 0 r c L D i c i c ( - L D L D i c f C D C D C D C i c D C 2 1 - i c L D D C D C L D L D D C i c D C \ ) C D I ) \ c C 1 L D I H i i c D C H D C D C H - i c D C i H- c D C D) C I C D C D C c L L D D L D r D C i U L D C D C + - D 0 r ‘ Z C L D r ( 9 1 i c i c 1 I ( 1 L D L D — 1 D C L D 1 ( D i c C ) 0 C L D H - L D 9 3 5 l C - 5 ( l aC i U S 5 : ia: 5 S ) 5 : 5 : 5 : 5 5 l C ) i 8 S 1 3 H5 5 5 ‘ i S 3 - ) 8 : . p ) 3 ( i S O C 5 5 8 i c 2 ) 5 ) S 5 ( Q f I ) 5 ( S 8 E ( : . p 5 : . p i S r 3 - 5 : i i S ) 1 i c ) 3 l C t H * i c ) 3 i c 5 : 2 1 ( o t 1 O C ) 5 - ) 55 : 3 - - ) 4 3 1 ) 5 3 3 8 + i c l C ) ) 3 ) ) 3 i i 4 - i S 0 3 $ 0 3 3 ( I C - , 3 3 i H l C ) 5 3 5 ( s t I 4 r i S 8 ( 4 - l C 2 5 ) 5 $ - , 3 i S l C 3 5 : - ) C O C 3 - 5 : l C 9 3 5 5 : S l C 1 ) . p 5 : 5 : l C - ) I - l C 2 5 5 : : 3 — l C ) . p i c ) C l C ) . p o s ) C i H - H 5 : i S 5 : S 5 3 5 l C 2 1 5 2 5 : + r 5 : q f l C 3 I )- r c 5 : l C i c 8 9 5 : - 5 t I 0 1 5 ) . p 4 3 c 4 o - 7 i 3 3 5 l C 5 ( 5 : 3 - Q i H l C 1 5 r l C 3 - C : . p - l C H S 5 : U : 2 5 5 S E 5 5 n I 23 B ) C 5 : : . p l C 2 ( a 5 : + r a i c l C 5 : . p i S i S A ) U D S C i c C 3 0 1 a 5 : j3 i c t - - i H 1 3 ) . p I Q 1 i c I i c t - l C 0 U1 3 - ) 5 5 l C 5 : i c ) 5 5 : 0 1 2 1 5 l ) 5 : ; : C ; 5 f U C — 0 1 3 : 3 - , 3 ) 1 ( — r f - 1 ) 5 : ) 5 5 5 - 3 5 5 5 5 : ) 5 ( t I 5 : i c l C : 5 ) 5 5 i S ) 5 5 5 : 1 y 5 ) 5 1 5 : a 4 A C D ‘ D W S ‘ - + - ’ b I a t $ ‘ D C ‘ ‘ a B 3 D C D C C * a ‘ D C D C 7 3 0 ) 0 t 3 a 3D o 0 , C , t a D C z ‘ 0 D C 0 ‘ V ) 0 0 C 5 * B f D C I W ’ 0 I D C W D C , . — C ) ‘ 3 ‘ . * - - - r f - : , 2 ) h 3 2 0 ‘ — D C , e w ’ 0 ; , o 1 1 3 D a ) 0 s O , C a I 9 - 4 0 . - I ) 0 . w ) 0 ‘ . . - . t • Ø % e ) c • o . w 1 . * 5 ) 0 $ 3 b - 7 3 ‘ ) , - C c S — . d q7 . a s Q I W D • — t 0 3 1 i I ‘ C ’ 0 D 3 .

3 - m D C e 3 9 - _ r B r ) 9 m . 0 a 3 1 I — S D I t C 4 . 5 t C 7 P r ‘ 4 . - ‘ t - I w ’ C W D C 6 . . q a ) ‘ I ‘, , a t - 3 g - 1e 0 D C 3 1 ) 0 g D C r t ; t z 4 p u V t a ça 0 D C 1 Q J ) C L t i ; 7 ’ .P t - a D C , - 0 0 S g R S 0 I3 , e C . a . - 0 5 1 4 5 1 • D — C r 0 D ‘ 3 D C , - $ W e 9 . D C b D C D C a B Z C 2 1 7 9 . 1 l f B a , , - D C . f D C 2 ° a a ) D a 0 a e a ‘ D C 6 t . *3 D C - , ) 0 b 7 C a D C t 5 a 9 D 2 C 2 t - , SI C , 0 ‘ 4 ‘ 4 0 4 a O j ] $ b ’ C 1 . S ) 0 f - 9 - ’ 3 7 3 3 1 . . - o H ‘ ) 0 p 0 C 4 . D C 5 D C ‘ ? D C 0 1 s e - D C - C j - n i R D C * ) 1 . 3 • a C ‘ ‘ . 1 1 1 . a 0 ) ) 1 4 S a • ’ s , o ) C D C D C % j ( ) C 0 S D C 4 * . p , J % 4 t B ” i D C a t - 0 5 0 o * . . p a D C 0 ‘ g D C 0 D C D C D C D C 4 3 sq ‘ D a ‘ 0 3 P D C t t Z * : 1 5 s “ m o 8 D C p D C A t - Ø b e c . p t r D C l f 3 a .

P a D C ) 0 4 • I ) . • a 4 a 1 0 . . 9 j 3 . 9 • 0 . p 2 . P C a O C • 3 tC . S - - • - ‘ p r n D C D C 9 ( D C 3 ‘ 2 4 . • D I D C D I O J D C D I D I I L I L D I I L - D I D I S I L D C 5 D C I L S r D C 1 - - j l C 3 D 1 - I L I L D C D I D C o 0 D I D I O J D C x D I D I 1 1 D I _ _ 0 n D C _ 0 5 D C D C D C I L 0 3 - 5 o 0 — D I D I - 3 D C 0 0 4 D C 0 0 o 0 D C - o c D D ) c ÷ j D I — O J S ) - 0 D I D I - D C D I D I 0 L I L l C 1 > D I I L D C S - ) 1 ) z 0 0 D I 0 0 I D I 0 r C I L 0 - - O J D C - “ j o O J ) - - D C 1 D C c - j - 0 D . 1 - D I I L Q 0 D I I x c 0 C ) I L i c D C 1 I L D I D I J ; D I ) D D I 3 I L I C D I Court found it is unsafe to rely on the interested testimony of these close relatives ifl respect of the oftence under Section 307 of the IPC and acquitted all the accused percons in respec.t of tic e said chs.rge, it would be unsafe to rely on the same testimony of the said •witnesses to convict the.. accused for the oftnce punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.

15.

For the aforesaid reasons the trial Court erred in reining on the Interested testimony of PW-i. 679 and 10 and other evidence found to be not trustworthy and not reliable in respect of maj or offence under Section 307 of the IPC and therefore the trial Court could have extended the benefit of doubt to the accused persons even in respect uf the offence under Section 498A of the IPC.

16. For the above reasons the appeal is allowed and the convic;tion of the appei.iant no 1 i.n respect of th.e. offence e - e’c ec assert dv the trial Court is •set. aside. Tl.ie apuei.la.nt is sa.id. to .1 LJi.L I 1101 0101 100 lJcl.i..I 1i1J.I0 01000: 0 = r D 0 C D C Q r = D C = D C — - 0 D C r 0 — 0 0 r H ± r ) C r c : 0 • S : D — C — o D C = * r =C D D— C D C r I0 j H D C D C m _ Q - r L : L D C H 1 j t r D C D C Q . z p , t .= c D C = D C 0 = D C r I H D C