STATE OF MYSORE Vs. VENKAPPASETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by tiie State and directed against an Order made by the First Class Magstrate, Hassan, in CC. No.912 of 1971 and the Order of affirmance made by the learned Sessions Judge at Hassan, in CrRP.7 of 1971.

(2.) A charge sheet was placed by the Pulice of Sakleshpur against the respondents, levelling charges under Ss.302 and 324 read with 34 IPC. Apart from the two respondents herein, there was another accused by name Sadhu. In view ot the fact that Sadhu had been alleged to be a minor, separate proceedings were instituted against him under Juvenile Offenders Act. We are not concerned with his case for the present. The prosecution case is that on 7-5-1971 at about 6-30 p.m. one Alban Lobo was assaulted by the three accused with sticks and stones and was also throttled, as a result of which he died almost immediately. The proceedings were conducted in accordance with the provisions of Sec.207A, CrPC. During the committal stage, the wite and son of the deceased have been examined. The Postmortem report of the Doctor is that the death was the result of throttling and not on account of the assault with sticks and stones. The learned Magistrate examined the papers relevant and also the evidence and came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under S.326 IPC had been made out against the respondents, and accordingly framed a charge under that section He came to the conclusion that there Vere not sufficient grounds to commit the respondents under S.302 IPC. Aggrieved by the said Order, the State preferred a revision petition before the Court of Sessions under S.435 CrPC presumably seeking a direction under S.437 of that Code. It was dismissed.

(3.) It is seen from the Order made by the learned Magistrate under Section 207A, that the question relative to the charge under S.34, IPC has not been examined. But the learned Sessions Judge, in a brief order, while affirming the Order of the learned Magistrate, has examined that question and come to the conclusion that the case under S.34, IPC had not been established. Hence this petition by the State.