Karnataka High Court
Ajitkumar S/O Kadappa Chougala vs State Of Karnataka on 4 July, 2022
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 101360 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101360 OF 2022 (482)
BETWEEN:
AJITKUMAR S/O KADAPPA CHOUGALA,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
OPPOSITE TO IMA HALL,
DURGA NAGAR GOKAK,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI 591307.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH HUKKERI POLICE STATION,
HUKKERI, BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS IN
Digitally
signed by S.C.NO.5017/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL.
ANNAPURNA DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT CHIKKODI
CHINNAPPA PURSUANT TO THE REGISTRATION OF COMPLAINT FIR AND CHARGE
DANDAGAL
Location: SHEET IN HUKKERI POLICE CRIME NO.158/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES
HIGH COURT PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 302, 201, 364, 120-B R/W SECTION 34 OF
OF IPC AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
-2-
CRL.P No. 101360 of 2022
ORDER
Heard Sri K.Anandkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State on admission. Perused the records.
2. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer :-
"To quash the impugned proceedings in S.C.No.5017/2022 pending on the file of the VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikkodi pursuant to the registration of complaint FIR and charge sheet in Hukkeri Police Crime No.158/2021 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 364, 120-B r/w Section 34 of IPC as against the petitioner."
3. The brief facts of the case are as under :-
Police Sub-Inspector, Yamakanmardi su-moto lodged a report with Mayakanmardi Police Station on 12.10.2021.
The gist of the report says that on 01.10.2021 Ajith Shivanand Bhushi visited the police station and lodged a report stating that a male dead body aged about 42 to 45 years was found floating in the river water on the river bed -3- CRL.P No. 101360 of 2022 of Ghodageri village. Based on the said report, a case came to be registered in UDR No.32/2021 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. and FIR sent to the Tahsildar and higher police officials. Tahsildar conducted inquest mahazar and the dead body was shifted to BIMS Hospital, Belagavi for postmortem. On seeing the dead body photograph in social media, present petitioner arrived into BIMS Hospital and identified the dead body as that of his younger brother Bahubali Kadappa Chougala, aged about 42 years.
Thereafter on receipt of the postmortem report, the Police Sub-Inspector Nyamagouda suspected that the death of Bahubali is not a natural death and somebody has killed him and thrown the dead body into the river in order to destroy the evidence. After such report being given to the Station House Officer, a case came to be registered in Crime No.189/2021 for the offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC against unknown person at the inception.
4. On further investigation, the investigation agency is able to find out the involvement of present -4- CRL.P No. 101360 of 2022 petitioner and two other persons in the incident and filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and two others on 14.11.2021. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and committed the matter to the Sessions Court. Thereafter, the present petitioner has challenged the issue of summons in this petition.
5. In the petition, the following grounds have been raised:
• The very registration of the case against the petitioners for the offence punishable u/s 302,201,364,120B R/w Sec. 34 of IPC. and also the order cognizance and issue of summons is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law and records of the case besides being against the principles of natural justice.
• The courts below have not considered the material contradictions in the complaint and the sworn statements of the witnesses and hence landed in error resulting in miscarriage of justice.-5- CRL.P No. 101360 of 2022
• That there are no materials placed before the court to show that the petitioner has played any role as alleged in the complaint.
• That the petitioner has not at all given supari to any one, murdering said Bahubali, in the year of 06 03-1975 Petitioner adapt one Siddavva Basavant Bedakihal family in Hullali village date of the adoption the Petitioner residing at Hullali, after adoption Kumabr family no way concerned to the Petitioner Hence the alleged complaint is false and baseless and same is fit to be quashed.
• That there are absolutely no grounds made out for passing impugned order. The police create false story the Petitioner gave supari to the accused Rama @ Ramappa and Arun for murdering said Bahubali and on enquiry to said Rama and Arun the disclosed that they murdered said Bahubali by receiving advance supari money of Rs. 1,00,000/0 the police no recover any amount from accused No. 2 an 3 the police have created false story.
• It is submitted that the Petitioner working S.G COMP P.U College (High school Section) -6- CRL.P No. 101360 of 2022 at Gokak he being innocent has not committed the alleged offence and that the false complainant is filed it is submitted that the complaint and charge sheet do not show the ingredients of the alleged offences and story against him is build up. The recording of sworn statement by the trial court is contrary to the principles known to Law and on this ground alone, the entire proceedings initiated by the trial court is liable to be set aside.
• It is submitted that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident which is based upon the circumstantial witnesses. Any other grounds in support of the relief sought for by the petitioner will be urged during the course of arguments.
• It is submitted that the petitioner after adoption in the year of 1975 he residing at Hulloli after complication of his study he working in S.G COMP P.U College Maradimath Tq. Gokak Kubar family no way concerned after adoption to Siddawwa Basavanth Bedikihal Family the entire proceedings -7- CRL.P No. 101360 of 2022 initiated by the trial court is liable to be set aside.
• Even otherwise viewed from any angle, the impugned orders passed by both the courts below are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law and records of the case besides being against the principles of natural justice.
6. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Sri K.Anandkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the police have unnecessarily implicated the present petitioner in the incident as per the voluntary statement given by accused Nos.2 and 3 and therefore, sought for quashing of the complaint. He further contended that gist of Column No.17 would reveal that the present petitioner had paid money (given supari) for accused Nos.2 and 3 to kill Bahubali and no amount is recovered by the investigation agency from the custody of accused Nos.2 and 3 and therefore, sought for allowing the petition. He also pointed out that the petitioner is permanently residing at Gokak and he had no role -8- CRL.P No. 101360 of 2022 whatsoever in the unnatural death of his younger brother Bahubali and sought for allowing the petition.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition on the ground that even though the case is based on the circumstantial evidence, the materials collected by the investigating agency in the form of the voluntary statement given by accused Nos.2 and 3 and the prima facie materials showing that death of Bahubali is homicidal would be sufficient enough to proceed against the petitioner and therefore sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. Perused the material on record meticulously on the basis of the rival contention of the parties.
9. Admittedly, a dead body was found in the riverbed of Ghodgeri village. The said dead body was seen by one Ajith and based on the same, the police have swung into action and removed the dead body from the river and registered the case in UDR No.32/2021 and -9- CRL.P No. 101360 of 2022 thereafter conducted the inquest mahazar through the Tahsildar and postmortem was also conducted.
10. When the dead body was sent to the hospital for the purpose of postmortem, the picture of the dead body was circulated in social media. The present petitioner who is elder brother of the deceased, saw the picture of the dead body of his younger brother (deceased) and rushed to the hospital and identified the dead body.
11. After completion of the postmortem, the dead body was given to the relatives for the purpose of funeral. Thereafter, on receipt of the postmortem report, the Police Sub-Inspector, Yamakanamaradi Police Station namely Sri B.V.Nyamagouda suspected foul play in the incident and registered the case in Crime No.189/2021 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. Thereafter, the Investigating Agency conducted a detailed investigation inter-aliea, arrested accused Nos.2 & 3.
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 101360 of 2022
12. When in custody, accused Nos.2 & 3 gave the voluntary statements stating that the present petition being elder brother, having nurtured ill-will and enmity with the deceased, on account of the harassment made by the deceased, when he was drunk status, had told accused Nos.2 & 3 to take away the life of Bahubali (deceased) on accepting the cash price (supari). On the strength of such statement given by accused Nos.2 & 3 present petitioner was apprehended by the police and he has also given a voluntary statement specifically in line with the voluntary statement given by accused Nos.2 & 3. No doubt the value to be attached to the voluntary statement, at this stage is very minimal inasmuch as the voluntary statement cannot be accepted as piece of evidence by the Courts in a matter of this nature. Nevertheless, since the prosecuting agency was able to establish prima facie, a strong nexus between the petitioner and the incident, he has been charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences.
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 101360 of 2022
13. The grounds urged in the petition are more in the nature of evidentiary value. Mere non recovery of the cash (supari amount) from the custody of accused Nos.2 & 3 itself would not be sufficient at this stage to doubt the case of the prosecution. In a matter of this nature especially when the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence, it is too premature for this Court to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is totally innocent and he should have the benefit of quashing of further proceedings by resorting to the powers vested in this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
14. Suffice to say that, the materials available on record at this stage would make out a case for the prosecution to proceed against the petitioner as well in the pending trial in SC.No.5017/2022. Accordingly, this court pass the following:
ORDER The petition is hereby dismissed.
- 12 -CRL.P No. 101360 of 2022
However, the observation made by this court during the course of this order shall not affect the rights of the present petitioner during trial.
SD/-
JUDGE CLK/EM