SHIVARUDRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in C.C.No.111/2014 for the offence punishable under Ss. 143 , 147 , 148 , 452 , 341 , 324 , 323 , 504 , 506 r/w Sec. 149 IPC on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC., Mudalgi is seeking discharge.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the complaint filed by respondent No.2/complainant does not disclose any ingredients of offences. There is delay in filing the complaint and the same is not explained. Though there is a primary health centre at Hulagaddi Village, complainant has not taken treatment there. Instead he has waited for more than 35 hours and allegedly took treatment at Gokak which is 20 kms away from the village. It shows collusion between the complainant and Investigating Officer. There are number of contradictions in the complaint. In fact the charge sheet witnesses viz., CWs-5 and 6 have filed P.C.No.27/2013 on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Mudalgi alleging that they were not at all present at the scene of occurrence and they have been falsely cited as witnesses.

(3.) During the course of arguments, learned counsel representing the petitioner has reiterated these grounds urged in the petition.