AYYANAGOUDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by one Ayyanagouda, directed against the order dated 7.5. 1981 passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Sindhanoor, in C.C.No.824 of 1979 holding that there is a prima facie case made out against him under S.109 IPC and, taking cognizance under S. 319 Crl. PC against him and issuing N.B.W. to him to appear before him to answer the charges for offences under Ss 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with S.34 I.P.C.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are: The Sindhanoor Police filed a charge sheet against Respondents 2 to 4 herein, who are accused 1 to 3 in the Court below, for offences punishable under Sections 314, 326, 324 and 323 read with S. 109 and 34 of I.P.C. The trial against them was proceeded in C.R.No. 824 of 1979. On 7.5.1981, P.W.3 - Shivangouda - was examined and it appears that he deposed that the accused parsons, Respondents 2 to 4 herein, were instigated by one Ayyanagouda, the petitioner herein, for causing injury to P.W.2-Mudukappa. The learned Magistrate, after perusing the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of P.W.3, came to the conclusion that a prim a facie case has been made out against the petitioner undr S. 109 I.P.C. and, therefore, suspended the trial and took cognizance of the offence under S 319 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner and ordered. issue of N.B.W. as aforesaid. It is the legality and correctness of the said order that is challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) Sri B.S.Raikote, learned counsel for the petitioner, took this Court through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and also the evidence of P.W.3 recorded in the case and submitted that the view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be justified in view of the fact that P.W. 2, the injured, himself does not say that the said Ayyanagouda is the person who instigated the other accused to commit the aforesaid offences. If that is so, he contended that the learned Magistrate was not justified in wholly relying upon the evidence of P.W.3 to come to the conclusion that there is prima facie material to show that the petitioner has instigated the other accused to assault P.W.2, On the other hand, Sri Kuranga the learned) High Court Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court and road over that portion of the -evidence of P.W.3 wherein P.W.2 told him that the petitioner has Instigated the other accused to assault P.W. 2. If that is so. he contended that 'he view taken by the learned Magistrate is. in accordance with the evidence produced by the prosecution and taking of cognizance under S. 319 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner is well founded and it cannot be interfered with.