State of Karnataka v. Pandappa Rathod & Ors.
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Summary
A structured summary for this judgment hasn’t been prepared yet. The full text is below.
Precedent status
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.
Original judgment text
Judgment
1 . . — CC ) iaa C C C ) C i c ) aC ) a C a L C ) a i c ) C . ) a a 1 2 2 ) C a L aC a ) C a L C ) a a — a C ) : i CaH C ) a L C H a ) ) C ) C ) aC L ) aC ) a C C ) a ) ) C C ) a i ) H C L ) aC C L )a aC C ) a )HC C ) ) C C C ) C ) a C aa C ) L C ) a a bC - )a C r c C a aa ) ) ) iaC C ) C C ) C a ’ ) - ) ) C C L C i H aC )a r ) C : a L C ) a ) ) C C J - ) a C a ) i I L )a C C ) a ) C ) a ) C C C ) a L C L C . ) C C C ) a ) C — ) a 2 ) C ) a r L C ) a L C ) C ) C i i C H 2 2 i c a )- C 2 _ 1Q H a ) C 0 ) a ) a C a ) a C ) a ) C * 2 L C ) C C a . . • a L C ) a ) J ç ) a ) C C C C ) C a - ) C ) a : ) C a ) C * a C C ) ) C ) C a a . a a ) a * . . — % a a ) ) C C - ) a C ) C C C C C ) a ) a H — a a . L C i c c a - a ) C L C . a ) C . a ) C ) a _ C L C : C ) a a a ) i C C L C ) a L C ) a — ) C l C ) ‘ - a a r ) C L C ) C ) C H _ a ) C ) a — a • a . • L C a ) C ) a - ) C a L C ) a a . I W ) C . C C ) C ( ) a C - ) a ) C C i a < ) a - r L C a 2 . < L C ) C — < — a H ) C ) C i C a a C C ) ) C C ) C . i r _ C ) a ) C i - — ) C ) a ) — a a . L C ) C a a L C i i ) a C C C - ) a ) — < . . 2 , ) C * - ) C C ) a ) C C — f C ) — C 2 a - 2 — i C ) C 2 . ) C ) a . a L C a H ) - C ) a — ) C 2 a ) C a . . a — ) C ) a C C C C ) C ) a i c ) C L C I W i H H ) ) l C C ) C . a - a . i C ) a ) a r f ) . ) C i C . _ ) C i C ) a . C C L C a ) a C ) l C ) a . - ) C a r i ) C ) a L C • ) C ) a c c . i C i S - . — ) a L C ) — C a 3 H a - a — \ a a ) C . . a a L C ‘ ) C ) C L — C H : H C L C a . j a 2 H ) a C i C ) C a ) - C . a a i - a — ) C a . 2 ) C 7: conclusive proof of the material. It is only a document, which entitles the Police to start the investigation. However, the complainant himself has deposed before the Court against those two persons, but he has been treated hostile, on the ground that he has not supported the case of the prosecution against the respondent herein.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the Fast Track Court — Il. Koppal. The appeal fails at admission stage itself. Accordingly. the appeal stands dismissed. eiUIsat a aN I 1— Rsh A C’ Sd/a JUDGE Sd! JUDGE tJr5 4—