Karnataka High Court
Shri Umesh S/O Lakshmana Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB
CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100012 OF 2025 (C-)
BETWEEN:
SHRI UMESH S/O. LAKSHMANA NAIK,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE WORKER,
R/O. TALAMAKKI, MANKI, HONNAVAR, TQ. HONNAVAR,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA (KARWAR)-581348.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. NIRMALA DODAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HONNAVAR, POLICE STATION,
VINAYAKA UTTAR KANNADA.
BV R/BY. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD
Digitally signed
by VINAYAKA B V ...RESPONDENT
Date: 2026.03.12 (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDITIONAL SPP)
10:28:22 +0530
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF
CR.P.C., (UNDER SECTION 415(2) OF BNSS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN S.C. NO.01/2019 DISPOSED BY THE PRL.DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR ON 14.03.2023, AND
SET-SIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 14.03.2023 AND
SENTENCE DATED 21.03.2023, IN S.C. NO.1/2019 PASSED BY THE
PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA KARWAR
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 324, 302, 307, 504
AND 506 OF IPC AND APPELLANT MAY BE ACQUITTED IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB
CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and the learned Addl. SPP for the respondent/State.
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction dated 14.03.2023 and order of sentence dated 21.03.2023 passed in SC No.1/2019 by the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar against the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 302, 307, 504 and 506 of IPC and prays this Court to acquit the accused for the aforesaid offences.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 20.08.2018 at about 15.30 hours, in the afternoon, the accused called the deceased to drink the tender coconut and when he went near the house, he gave tender coconut to the deceased and immediately, the accused inflicted injuries on the face, head and backside of -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR the deceased with Machete. When the wife of the deceased tried to save her husband, the accused inflicted injury on the wife of the deceased also, as a result, the injured husband of PW2 and PW2-wife, who sustained injuries, both of them were shifted to the hospital and injured PW2 took treatment in the hospital and the husband of PW2-injured succumbed to the injuries and this incident was also witnessed by PW1, son of the deceased. Based on the complaint in terms of Ex.P1, a case was registered against the accused and collected all the materials including recorded the statement of the witnesses and after conclusion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 307 and 302 of IPC. The accused is in the custody from the date of his arrest and he was secured before the trial Court. The charges are framed and the accused did not plead guilty and claims trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the charges against the accused, examined PW1 to PW17 and also got marked Exs.P1 to P40A and also relied upon MO1 to MO11. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was subjected to 313 statement and he denied the incriminating materials of the -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR prosecution, however, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The trial Judge having considered both oral and documentary evidence of PW1-eye witness, PW2-injured eye witness, PW3, who rushed to the spot having heard the screaming sound and who found the accused at the spot and he left the spot showing weapon causing a threat to the persons, who were present at the spot that he is going to teach a lesson to them. The trial Judge also considered the evidence of IO, who recovered the machete and also the clothes of the accused, which were blood stained and also believed the evidence of PW5- panch witness for recovery and also considered the FSL report, which is marked before the trial Court and having considering all these materials, comes to a conclusion that the accused only committed the murder of the deceased. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/accused.
5. The counsel for the accused/appellant during the course of argument, would vehemently contend that the judgment of the trial Court is manifestly perverse and which is entirely opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case. The -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR learned counsel further contends that the prosecution mainly relied upon the interested witnesses, namely the wife of the deceased, son of the deceased and another son of the deceased, those who have been examined as PW-1 to PW-3. It is further contended that the trial Judge committed an error in accepting the evidence of the family members and none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the incident is concerned.
6. The learned counsel for the accused further vehemently contends that if there was any prior enmity between the accused and deceased, the deceased would not have gone to the spot when the accused was called to drink tender coconut. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to prove prior enmity between the accused and deceased, therefore, the question of inflicting the injury by the accused when he was called to the spot to have the tender coconut is not properly considered by the trial Court.
7. The counsel vehemently contends that the accused and his wife fell down near their house on the sharp-edged stone and sustained injuries and further contended that at the time of -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR the incident, the accused was not in the house and he had gone to coolie work and the trial Judge failed to consider the same.
8. The counsel also vehemently contends that the trial Judge committed an error in not considering the lot of discrepancies in the case of the prosecution and particularly in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. PW-1 says that he himself and parents were sitting in front of their house, whereas, PW-2 says that both husband and wife were sitting in front of their house and not said anything about the very presence of PW-1 in the house and this discrepancy was not taken into consideration. The counsel further submitted that the evidence of PW-5, who is the independent witness for recovery of machete and the clothes of the accused, is also not consistent but he gives an admission in the cross-examination that he had signed the mahazar as prepared by the Police; therefore, his evidence cannot be believed. The counsel also submitted that the FSL report shows that 'AB' positive blood group is the blood group of PW-2 and case of the prosecution is that machete was stained with blood, but here the blood of PW-2 is found and not that of the blood of 'B' group of deceased. Hence, it is clear that in the absence of -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR blood group of the deceased on the machete, the trial Judge committed an error in believing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly, the investigating officer and also the evidence of PW-5 and ought to have given the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Hence, it is a case for interference of this Court. The counsel would submit that the trial Judge committed an error in invoking Section 324 of IPC as well as Section 302 of IPC for the injuries sustained by the deceased and also committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and contend that the ingredients of those offences are also not proved by the prosecution. Hence, it is a case for acquittal.
9. Per contra, the learned Additional S.P.P appearing for the respondent/State would submit that the incident had taken place near the house of the accused and not near the house of the injured or PW-1 to PW-3 and no dispute with regard to the place of incident. The counsel submits that the injuries sustained by the deceased as well as PW-2 is not disputed and only defence was taken that both of them have sustained the injuries when accidentally fell on the sharp edged stone. Learned -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR Additional S.P.P would also submit that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, who are the eye witness as well as injured eye-witness and PW-3, who is a circumstantial witness, who rushed to the spot, having heard the screaming sound and found the accused at the spot.
10. Further, the counsel submits that the accused left the place on arrival of PW-2 and PW-3 to the spot and also causing threat to them. Hence, rightly invoked Section 506 of IPC and so also, counsel would submit that the accused inflicted the injury with the machete on the vital part of PW-2 i.e., on her head and hence, invoked Section 307 of IPC. This Court cannot find fault with the same.
11. The counsel appearing for the respondent/State would also submit that there is a recovery at the instance of the accused and accused only led the investigation officer as well as PW-5 to the place, where he had hidden the machete and his cloth stained with blood and recovery was made. When such disclosure statement is made by the accused, pointing out the place where he hidden the same and PW-5 also supports the case of prosecution and apart from that, FSL report which is -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR marked before the Court as Ex.P25 also considered by the trial Court and rightly convicted the accused and it does not require any interference of this Court.
12. Having heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and also the learned Additional S.P.P for the respondent/State and considering the grounds urged in the appeal memo as well as the oral submissions of the respective counsel and on re- appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:
i. Whether the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 506 of IPC and whether it requires interference of this Court? ii. What order?
13. We have given our anxious consideration to the grounds urged in the appeal memo and also the submission smade during the course of arguments of respective counsel.
14. Having considered the material available on record, firstly, this Court has to decide whether it is a case of homicidal. Having considered the evidence of PW-14-Doctor, it is very clear
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR that on 20.08.2018, he commenced the post mortem at 09.45 p.m. and concluded at 11.45 p.m. on the very same day of the incident and found six injuries which are as follows:
i. Cut lacerated wound measuring 12 cm x 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm. Deep, sharp edges with clotted blood extending from right side angle of mouth to 5 cm below tempero mandibular joint. ii. Sharp cut wound started 3 cm below right pinna to oblique direction extending till 3 cms., above stemo clavicular joint 15 cm x 0.2 cms x 0.2 cms.
iii. No marks of ligature was found. iv. Cut lacerated wound with sharp edges stated from 3 cm. Lateral to left angle of mount extending horizontal and bisected left ear at middle part with clotted blood. Measuring 15 cm. x 0.3 cm. x 0.0 cm. Deep. No dislocations of muscles, bones and joints were found. v. Cut lacerated wound over right upper back vertically located measuring 7 cm. x 0.7 cm.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR deep x 5 cm. width. Sharp slightly oval sharpe clotted blood present.
vi. Elliptical shape cut lacerated wound over left upper back 1.5 inch lateral to thoracic spine oblique direction sharp edges extending to 2.5 cm below inferior border of scapula measuring 10 cm. x 5cm. x piercing to rupture the spleen.
15. In the evidence, the Doctor also says that on dissection of the body, found 9th, 10th and 11th ribs fractured in the left side. Plural tear present and also given the opinion that injuries are anti-mortem and kept the opinion pending avoiding RFSL report and he did blood grouping and it was 'B' positive. After the post mortem, he handed over the body to the Police and also handed over viscera in sealed bottles. Having received the RFSL report on 05.12.2018, gave the final opinion that cause of death is due to severe shock and haemorrhage due to intra- abdominal injury i.e., spleen bleed rupture. The age of the injuries was less than 12 hours and death is homicidal. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross- examination, with regard to the nature of injuries are concerned,
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR a suggestion was made that the deceased has sustained the said injuries by falling on sharp edged stones, due to imbalance in his movement and the same was denied. Further, suggestion was made that if a person falls on hard surface, there is chance of sustaining rupture of spleen and the same was also denied. The injuries are mentioned in the post mortem report as per Ex.P28 and blood grouping is as per Ex.P29 and FSL report is at Ex.31 and also the opinion as per Ex.P32.
16. Having taken note of the evidence of PW-14/Doctor, it is very clear that the injuries are cut lacerated wound and six in number and also the injuries are very deep in nature. The opinion is very clear that it is a case of homicidal and though suggestion was made to this witness that these type of injuries could be caused if a person accidentally falls on sharp edged stones, due to imbalance and those suggestions are denied and even with regard to a person falls on the hard surface, there is chance of sustaining rupture of spleen and no doubt, the doctor has also pointed out the rupture of spleen and also sustained injuries to the ribs. In further cross-examination, witness deposed that he has done blood grouping of CW-8 at the request
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR of CW-28. As per his opinion, the blood group of CW-8 is 'AB' positive and Ex.P39 is the blood grouping report issued by him and it bears his signature and identifies the signature as Ex.P39(A). In the cross-examination, admitted the date on which CW-8 had come to his hospital, when he tested her for blood group and the same is not mentioned but received the written requisition from the Police to do the blood group of CW-8 and based on that requisition, conducted the blood grouping.
17. Having taken note of all these materials available on record, it is a clear case of homicidal and not the case of accidental fall as suggested by the defence and also considering the nature of injuries i.e. cut-lacerated wound. The evidence of the Doctor is also positive that it is a case of homicidal and hence, we do not find any error on the part of the trial Court in appreciating the nature of injuries and also reconsidering the post mortem report and the final opinion of the Doctor that it is a case of homicidal.
18. Now coming to the evidence of prosecution witnesses is concerned, this case rests upon the direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence. It is the case of the prosecution that the
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR accused called the deceased near his house and asked him to have the tender coconut and when he gave the same to the deceased, at that time, the accused inflicted the injury with the machete on the face and also on the other parts of the body of the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries and when PW-2 also accompanied the deceased and she has witnessed the incident. When she tried to save her husband from the clutches of the accused, the accused also inflicted the injury with the same machete on her head and she also sustained the injuries and both PW-1 and PW-2 speaks about the overtact of the accused. The prosecution mainly relies upon the Wound Certificate of PW-2, who had sustained two injuries i.e., cut lacerated wound 3 x 1 cm. over the left occipital region and also the abrasion wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over the left little finger. Having considered this second injury is concerned, it is very clear that she made an attempt to save the life of her husband. At that time, she had sustained the injury and also the deceased inflicted the injury with the same machete on the head. As a result, she has sustained the injury to left occipital region and these injuries are also very clear that alleged history of assault and the injured and the deceased were taken to the same
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR hospital and in the cross examination of PW-1 and PW-2, who are the eyewitnesses to the incident, nothing is elicited from the mouth of both of them to disbelieve the case of prosecution.
19. In the cross-examination, suggestion was made that the accused was not in the house at the time of the incident and he went to coolie work. In order to substantiate the defence of alibi, nothing is placed on record even in 313 statement of the accused, he has not whispered anything that he was not in the house, at the time of the incident and the same is total denial and there is no any explanation on the part of the accused. It is also the suggestion to PW-2 that she had also sustained the injury to her head, when she accidentally fallen on the sharp edged stone and the same defence was taken while cross examining PW-1 and PW-2 that the deceased fell down on the sharp edged stone and sustained the injuries. The evidence of the Doctor-PW14 is very clear that those injuries are not out of any accidental injuries and apart from that, PW-1 and PW-2 who are the son and wife of the deceased, though they are the interested witnesses, their evidence is consistent and reliable and there was no any intention to implicate the accused in the
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR case and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of these two witnesses that both of them were having an animosity to implicate the accused in a false case.
20. No doubt, it is elicited that earlier there was a dispute between both of them and case was decided long back in 2003. This incident was taken place in 2018. No doubt, counsel appearing for the appellant brought to notice of this court that if enmity was in existence, the deceased ought not to have gone to the place when the accused was called him. But the fact is that, when the direct evidence is available before the Court, the motive is also insignificant while considering the case of murder and the same is significant in case if the case is only rest upon the circumstantial evidence. Hence, we do not find any force in the contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that there was no enmity. But when the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is very clear that they have witnessed the incident and witnessing the said incident is also withstood during the course of cross-examination, except the suggestion of denial of the very incident. No dispute with regard to the place of incident and also the nature of injuries, but only suggestion was made to the
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR witnesses PW-2 and also to the Doctor-PW14 that those two injuries are accidental injuries. Having considered the medical evidence also, we do not find any such force. The other witness is PW-3, who is also none other than the son of the deceased. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, all of them deposed before the Court that at the time of the incident, PW-1, PW-2 and deceased were sitting outside the house in front of their house. But other family members were inside the house. PW-3 having heard the screaming sound of PW-1, rushed to the spot and at that time, PW-1 and PW-2 witnessed the incident. But PW-3 admittedly came to the spot and by that time, already injuries are inflicted. But the accused was at the spot and he also categorically deposes that accused left the place causing threat that he would repeat the same to them also. The other witness prosecution relies upon the evidence of Investigating Officer as well as recovery witness PW-5. The investigating officer and PW-5, both categorically deposes that the accused led him and panch witnesses to the spot where he had hidden the weapon as well as the cloth and the same was recovered. PW-5 also in his evidence reiterates with regard to the recovery and accused only led him to the particular spot and the same is a disclosure statement by
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and also he categorically says that he had signed the mahazar-Ex.P16 and identifies his signature. Apart from that, he also says that photos were taken and the same are marked as Exs.P17 and P19 and he identifies his photo in Ex.P17 to 19 and also identifies M.O.6-machete, which was recovered at the instance of the accused and so also, the T-shirt and lungi of the accused, both are marked as M.O.9 and M.O.10. He also identifies the signature, which is marked as M.O.9(A) and M.O.10(A). No doubt in the cross-examination, he admits that police have taken the signature as they required on the panchanama and also he admits that similar type of M.O.6 would be available in every house. But when the suggestion was made that he had signed the mahazar at the Police station and he categorically denies the same and he deposes that his signature was taken where the panchanama was conducted and suggestion was made that in his presence, the accused did not produce even machete as well as blood stained cloth, the same was denied and also suggestion was made that in his presence that panchanama was not done and the same was denied and merely because, the admission given that Police have taken the signature as required by them,
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR that itself will not take away the case of the prosecution. But he categorically deposes with regard to the recovery at the instance of the accused and the investigation officer who has been examined as PW5. The evidence of PW15 is also very clear that he had drawn the mahazar in terms of Ex.P16 and he also speaks about the same. The trial Court cannot discard the evidence of the investigating officer, who recovered the incriminating materials of machete as well as clothes from the accused. When his evidence is also consistent, the Court can rely upon the evidence of the Police witness also and only if there was no any positive evidence before the Court, then Court can doubt the same. But the evidence of PW-15 and PW-5 is consistent with regard to the recovery is concerned. Hence, we do not find any error on the part of the trial Court in considering the evidence of these material witnesses particularly PW-1, PW- 2, PW-3, PW-5 and the evidence of PW-14 and also the evidence of PW-16, who treated the injured PW-2 in the hospital and issued the Wound Certificate in terms of Ex.P35, wherein also pointed out the nature of injuries and treated doctor was not alive. Hence, PW-16 is examined before the trial court to substantiate with regard to the wound certificate. When all these
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR materials available before the Court, the same points out the very role of the accused in committing the crime and hence, we do not find any error on the part of the trial Court in appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
21. The counsel appearing for the appellant during the course of argument would submit that there was no any intention to take away the life and this Court can bring the case within the purview of Section 300, exceptions and the said submission cannot be accepted and having taken note of the defence is very clear that accused was not present at the spot at the time of the incident and other limb of argument of the counsel appearing for the appellant is that it is a case of accidental fall and sustained the injuries when both of them fallen down on the sharp edged stone. But when there is no any ingredient of offence under Section 300, question of bringing the case within the purview of Section 300 also doesn't arise. Hence, we do not find any force in the contention of the counsel that there is a sudden provocation and the very presence is disputed and inflicting of the injury is disputed and even not set forth any such defence during the course of cross examination of the
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR witnesses. The defence is total denial of the incident and hence, we do not find any force in the said submission.
22. Having reassessed the material available on record, the evidence of PW-2 is very clear that when she tried to save the life of her husband, the accused inflicted the injury with the very same machete on the head i.e., vital part of the body. The wound certificate is also very clear that an injury on the occipital region and though injuries are not grievous but Court has to take note of an intention of an assailant in inflicting the injury, that too with a machete he inflicted the injury on the vital part and also Court has to take note of Section 307 of IPC that whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either prescription for it or which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. In the case on hand, hurt is caused with a deadly weapon like machete, that too on the vital part and hence, it is a clear case of 307 and not 324 and trial Court committed an error in even convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 and charge is also framed
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR in respect of 324 on the injuries caused to the deceased and when he succumbed to the injuries, question of framing the charge for 324 doesn't arise. Hence, the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. The trial Judge having taken note of an attempt to murder as well as taking of the life, imposed the life imprisonment and other sentence. Hence, question of modifying the sentence for the offence under Section 307 also does not arise and the same also shall run concurrently for the offence under Section 302 and 307 of IPC.
23. The other offence invoked is, Section 506 of IPC and the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 is very clear that accused while leaving the place, caused threat to all of them, showed and splashed the machete while leaving the place that he is going to teach a lesson to them. When such intimidation is caused to PW- 1 to PW-3, the trial Judge has not committed an error in invoking Section 506 of IPC and considering the evidence available on record, invoking Section 506 of IPC and we do not find any ground to interfere with regard to the conviction and sentence
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3825-DB CRL.A No. 100012 of 2025 HC-KAR for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. In view of the discussions made above, the following:
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and also the sentence and remaining conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 506 of IPC is confirmed. iii. The accused is entitled for the benefit under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE JTR/RKM CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 10