Sathisha vs State Of Karnataka
2024 Latest Caselaw 9628 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sathisha vs State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2024

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                          -1-
                                                      NC: 2024:KHC:13545
                                                  CRL.A No. 1073 of 2013




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                       BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1073 OF 2013
             BETWEEN:

             SATHISHA,
             S/O VENKATEGOWDA,
             AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
             R/O THIMMEGOWDANAPALYA,
             HEBBUR HOBLI,
             TUMKUR TALUK - 572 101,
             TUMKUR DISTRICT.
                                                            ...APPELLANT
             (BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE)

             AND:

             STATE OF KARNATAKA,
             REP. BY HEBBUR POLICE,
Digitally
signed by    TUMKUR - 572 101,
LAKSHMI T    TUMKUR DISTRICT.
Location:                                                 ...RESPONDENT
High Court   (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP)
of
Karnataka
                    THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
             SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:23.08.13 PASSED BY THE I/C
             P.O., FTC, TUMKUR IN S.C.NO.73/2011 - CONVICTING THE
             APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307 OF IPC.
             AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT.
                              -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:13545
                                     CRL.A No. 1073 of 2013




       THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

It is submitted by the learned counsel for appellant

that the present appeal has become infructuous as the

appellant has already undergone the sentence imposed by

the Trial Court and he has been released from the prison.

Hence, it is submitted that the appellant is not pressing

the present appeal.

2. Memo filed by the learned counsel seeking

withdrawal is placed on record.

3. Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LDC

CT:SNN