Karnataka High Court
Vaijinath S/O Basagonda And Anr vs State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200764/2016
BETWEEN:
1. Vaijinath S/o Basagonda
Age: 27 years
Occupation: Agriculture
Resident of Gadagi,
Taluk and District: Bidar
2. Rajreddy S/o Manikreddy
Age: 25 years,
Occupation: Agriculture
Resident of Gadagi
Taluk and District: Bidar
... PETITIONERS
(Shri Hanmantraya Sindol, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka
Through the Police
Bidar Rural Police Station
Represented by Government Pleader.
... RESPONDENT
(Shri P.S. Patil, Government Pleader)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to release the
petitioners on bail in Crime No.19/2016 of Rural Police Station,
Bidar, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
2. The present petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the following background:
It transpires that according to the complainant her husband Tiappanna was a coolie and he had left for work on 27.02.2016 at about 12 noon and even by evening he had not returned home. She was under a belief that he might come late and accordingly after having dinner she went to sleep. It transpires that on 28.02.2016 at about 7.30 a.m. her brother-in-
law came and informed her that he had found the dead body of 3 Tippanna lying on the field of one Mufin Khan and after going there they found that Tippanna had suffered injuries on his forehead, parietal bone, fore arms of the right hand was cut and there were bleeding injuries. Therefore a case was registered against unknown persons for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is then stated that in the course of investigation the Police Sub-Inspector, Bidar Rural Police Station had apprehended the petitioners and other accused from Basaveshwar Chowk, Near Zahirabad Bus Stand near Bidar when they were about to leave for Hyderabad. It transpires that on their voluntary statements they had stated that since Tippanna was indulging in black magic and witch-craft, they had decided to kill him and they had committed the murder of Tippanna. The manner in which the police were able to arrive at a conclusion that these petitioners and others were instrumental in causing the death of Tippanna was on the basis of statements made by two alleged eye-witnesses who had 4 stated that they were on the field where they had gone to defecate as it was their practice and at about 10.00 p.m. they saw the commission of the murder of Tippanna. It is on the basis of those statements, which are said to have been recorded not immediately, but after the incident on 29.02.2016, on the very same day the arrest having been made is a co-incidence. According to the accused they were taken from their homes and a false case was foisted against them and it was incorrect to state that they were running away from the village and that they were on the way to Hyderabad. It is merely to indicate that they were possibly guilty of the murder.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that having regard to the calendar, the day on which the murder was committed, it was not a full moon day and the incident having taken place at 10.00 p.m. it is highly unlikely that the witnesses were in a position to witness any incident in the darkness and therefore the prosecution would have to establish at the trial that 5 the petitioners with an intention to commit murder of Tippanna since he was indulging in black magic have indeed committed the murder of Tippanna. This would certainly have to be established at the trial and could not be on the basis of the statements made by the accused or the alleged eye-witnesses.
4. Though the learned Government Pleader would insist that there was sufficient moon light since 22nd February, 2016 was a full moon day and the waning moon would have thrown sufficient light even on 27th February, 2016 when the murder is said to have taken place. It is difficult to countenance that the witnesses did see the accused committing the murder and the manner in which it was done. Therefore, the petitioners have made out a case for enlargement on bail.
5. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The petitioners shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:
i. Each of the petitioners shall furnish a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 6 Thousand Only) with a surety, each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Court below.
ii. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below without the leave of the Court.
iii. The petitioners shall offer all co-operation in the investigation of the offence.
iv. The petitioners shall make themselves available for further investigation at all points of time.
v. The petitioners shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing of the case.
vi. The petitioners shall not, in any manner,
seek to tamper with the prosecution
evidence.
Sd/-
JUDGE
swk