AMBANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners arraigned as Accused Nos. 3 & 8 in the charge sheet filed by the police in C.C. No.136/2015 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) JMFC, Indi, arising out of Crime No.3/2015 of Indi Police for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 451, 323, 504, 302, 307, r/w. 149 OF IPC.

(2.) The said case was registered on the complaint lodged by one Mr. Prakash, son of the deceased- Yeshwanth Apthagiri, making allegations that on 31.12.2014 there was some quarrel between the complainant and his family members with some of the accused persons. Thereafter, the complainant and his brother went to their house and slept after resolution of the quarrel. The father, mother Putalibai and his sister's son Siddarama were also slept in the hotel. On 01.01.2015 in the early hours at 2.30 a.m. mother of the complainant and his sister's son Siddarama came weeping and told the complainant that Accused No.1 Parameshwar and others are assaulting the father of the complainant. Immediately the complainant and his brother Pundalik rushed to the hotel and saw the accused persons by name Parameshwar (A1), Ambanna, Prakash, Ramesh, Siddaraya were assaulting the deceased (father of the complainant) indiscriminately all over the body and due to sustaining of the injuries, the father of the complainant succumbed in the hospital.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though the eyewitnesses have stated about the presence and overt-acts so far as these petitioners along with Accused No.1 is concerned, the post-mortem report shows that the deceased had only sustained two injuries on the head and another on his hands. If all the said five accused have indiscriminately assaulted the deceased, there must be more than five injuries and therefore, the statement of the eyewitnesses at this stage cannot be relied as gospel truth. Further he contended that the petitioners were the relatives of Accused No.1, as such, they were falsely implicated in the case. He further contends that the petitioners arrested on 03.01.2015 and since then they have been in judicial custody. On the said grounds, he pleads for release of the accused.