Karnataka High Court
B Lokesh vs State Of Karnataka on 9 August, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
_
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN
DATED THIS Tm: 9th DAY or AUGUST. zcxzefg: ._
BEFORE
THE I-IOIWBLE MR. JUSTICEN.
Crl.P. No. 3767 'of 2516
Crl.P.No.3? Q .
Crl.P. No. 3767 of 2010
Between:
B. Lokesh, --
S/0. BasaVaraj.u,'«.._ "_' .»
Aged about 2_1j--.ye8;;r'S,_V ~ O
Agriculturisit, V
R/a. Gajanuii, IV{a1;;val1i_Ta1'uk';
Mandya '
... Petitioner
[By Sri. AI'\)'{.,V_S4'. ,JASenior Counsel for
M / s. i\/LS. vRajend';aprasad & Associates}
Otate of sta.ka,
Police.
... Respondent
~k'ir-k'*# V O' _ {By Sm. Vije1y'étkumar Majage, HCGP} CrI.P is filed U/S 438 Cr.P.C praying to enlarge " { t3f1e«..petiti0ner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr}No.16/ 10 of Malavalli Rural Police Station, Mandya _Di_sétrict, which is regd., for the offence p/u/s 498--A, 120B, 302, 201, 304(1)} r/w 34 of IPC
--2~M Crl.P. N0 3768 of 2010 Between:
1 Chowdesh, S/o. Basavaraju.
Aged about 22 years, V R/ of Gajanur, Maiavalli Taluit, Mandya District.
2 Mahadeva, S/0. Appaiahdan Aged about 30 years, ' R/ of Gajanur, Malavalli Taluk, _ MandyaD1str1ct. _ gna, 2 ... Petxtloners (By Sri. Sri. M.S. Rajendraprasadd,» :Ser'1io1'AA-'{_;'o_ti~nse1 for M/ s. M.S. Rajendraprasad 8: :Ass'o--eiates)f__ ' And:
State of _' _ By Malayalli'F?ru2*aI':}?oIir;e;'a_A ' '
4. -- * Respondent (By SI_'i_. Vijajmkumar Niajagé, HCGP) Is filed U/s 438 Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the 'p¢t:t:one~rx on bail in the event of his arrest in E'r.i'-Io.it3'/:19' ~"MaIava1Ii Rural Police Station, Mandya District which is regd., for the offence p/u/ s 498--A, I208, 3O2."'42OZ_5'3QV4*ib) r/W 34» of IPC.
Crl.Ps. coming on for Orders this day, the Court x V' ':jmade._the following:
:0RDEF?:
The petitioners in Criminal petitions 3768/2010 are arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 K No. 16/2010 registered for sections 498A, 302. 201, 1208 of for offences under sections 4 of it Act. Accused No.3, bail and Accused Nos. 1 and:_2'
2. I ha.ve:~.heardr counsel Sri. M.S. ijietitioners and learned Governirnelnt' . A K it « fiave_.t.a'ken through investigation recordsr rieirdthe First Information Report and l"investigatioii.records, the deceased Shivarnma was the informant and she married to Accused No;5«.__on___v'2..!3:§"2004 thereafter, she was living with the K."4"-..VVVAcc.usedr--No.5. Accused No.4-- Kamalamma is the wife of ..'lth_e"eider brother of Accused No.5. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 the children of Accused No.4 and Accused No.2 is A' the associate of Accused I & 3. The deceased and N bgeismimii...
Accused No.5 were living in a portion of the house' and Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were iiving in the other of the same house. A. it A
4. it is the case of 'Au Accused Nos. 1,3,4 and 5 had commit the murder of th§.,i...:[email protected]_ . the marriage of Accused No.5 v«'ith"._:sor::e othe'r~gi'r§i to get substantial dowry as v"S.atisfied with the dowry that was-given at the time of his marriage' ' oiédcorispiracy entered into and 5, the Accused No.5 left hAis_Vnatia{/'e.i)1ac.e on 1.2010 stating that he wouid tok'Sha.barima1ai"'ahd return on 16.1.2010 and had r'u.,6-=huI>tt¢L L___,,fi and 4 to commit the murder of deceased' intehe interregnurn. AA _ furtherance of conspiracy, on 13.1.2010 at _&":"':..3O when the deceased was in her house Accused Nos. 1,3,4 agfllleged to have committed " the murder of deceased thereafter, they packed the dead P, -
body in plastic bag. Accused No. 1 to 3 transported the dead body by motorcycle which belonged to Ac>:;:ti'sed No.5 and which was in temporary custody-.'of.__'__ione' Lokesh. The dead body packed in gunccyitcoccg ll4waj.s«lt, thrown into the Shimsha River, 4'
7. That on 14.1.2010', the father of [first informant) came to lltheidecleased by carrying lunch their house on the eve of Sankranthi 't:hcc'l'Accused No.5 nor the dec'ea,vsed"'t'wa.s\' .foa1nd_.in. tl;e'"house. When he questioned " Nos.l""l,2 and 3, they gave evasive answers, lflerdeveloped suspicion and therefore, he lodged a umissinhg complaint. oc_13.o1't;'2o:0 at 8 RM Accused 1 31 3 had, 1cta¥:eni';n:Voto'rVcycie from above said Lokesh. After motor cycle was returned, the said Lokesh found that the "entire liters of petrol which was filled into the tank .:had- iheeri exhausted. Therefore, following day, he qtiestioned the accused Nos. 1 and 2 who made extra " judicial confession about the crime committed by them 3-\_: . ixew/"5*"'"' 4"' and also using the motorcycie for transporting the dead body and throwing the dead body into Shimsha river. On 17.172010 at about 3.00 p.m., the aboveghfsaid Lokesh, informed the matter to the elder brother«'Vo'_f_a'4t.i3fe' deceased and thereafter, the elder brother..rep.or:tfe'dn_thee f matter to the jurisdictional policegon .j;1';2V0': 2 'V, y
9. After Lokesh inforrrged matterrto:
brother of the deceased, the aecjused and 5 were missing.
10. Accused Nos, 4""ayvere'V'"arrested and accused" accused No.3 has sought f ' _ 1.1. Sri". Rajendra Prasad, Senior Counsel for "'the":p.etition'e.rs suhrnitted that, the dead body was found state. In the Post Mortem examination retiort. _iti.s}stated that the opinion of as to cause of "death cannot be furnished as the dead body was found r.:'in:'a--.decomposed state. The Investigation Officer has coiiected any material to establish that the dead body recovered from Shimsha River was the dead body W /--i,\,e«»~»z9/.s of Shivamma. The extra judicial confession made by Accused Nos. 1 to 3 is weak piece of evidence. Acctised 1,2 and 3 had no motive to commit the deceased. it
12. The learned Government .,.. the bail application has :i:1aCi_et~:V submissions; ' it d The witness, narnely, '' motive to falsely implicate the of the Accused subseqiient the'*occu.rrence:is not consistent with iriforrnation given by the Accusedvl\ios.V dead body tied in a plastic g1,tnr;y.o bag"was-recovered in Shimsha river, near 'l V. After Accliised Nos. 1 to 3 were arrested and voluntary statements leading to the place where ft19tey had thrown the dead body of deceased :"ShiVatn'ma into Shirnsha river. In the circumstances, gietitioners are not entitled to grant the reliefs " Hf -»sought in these petitions. (Qm .. 2 C _ mmgvfl, an
13. On consideration of the investigation records, I find that Accused No.5 is none other than the youngest brother of wife of first informant. From the contents of First information Report, I do not find any the first informant to falsely implicate The conduct of the Accused Nos: and i first informant had visited the ho1.1se._of the eve of Sankranti Festiva"i'c's.is'inot their V evidence and they givenevasive_replliles."l The said Lokesh before whom all-~to 3 had made didwnot have any motive to false1y"in1p1icate"tI1e'Accused. The conduct of Accused Nos.-it _& thellimotorcycle from the said Lokesh iriforminlgll him purpose for which it was returning the motorcycle (exhausting two 1it;e'rs«:l*"of Petrol filled in tank) would prima facie .indicate. their complicity. The statements of other it "'._wit1'iesses would reveal that after 13.1.2010 deceased " "was never seen alive. .
/" a "
M? W1 , ' ,fi'\f\.»\.--/ * .
14. As far as the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.3767/2010 is concerned, he is alleged to committed an offence under section 201 "
causing disappearance of evidence' in which is punishable with :._ seven years. Therefore, of it allegations made against andtheg nature of offence and the petition as against Nos. 1 and 3 are records prima--fac1'e reveal thtelloftence and they are the close relatives ' they were living in different portion' thelslame house and their conduct ' ."afte"r~ Vocicuritence ivsflwnot consistent with their evidence. records would reveal that they were abse,ondirigVl'fsafter 14.1.2010. In the circumstances, R""'--._V:'petitione.rs~ 1 and 3 in Criminal Petition No.3767/2010 ..lhave..:not granted anticipatory bail. So far as accused cannot be released on bail or anticipatory bail. In the result, I pass the following:
,7\J.> \, ' :Order:
The Criminal Petition No.3767/20ji{5H--«"is dismissed.
The Criminal Petition N0. 3768/'2G_'iMd_vVasdit i¥e1i.;11-tee,' it to Accused No.1 is dismissed "and "as it.,%.I*e1ates:"~tc"._ Accused No.2 is accepted. .'No_..2 frelevasedt on it bail, subject to followiiig c0r;.diti;:iiis§""
(i) Accused Not? for a sum a surety for the satisfaction of '''' is (iii? not intimidate or tamper presedcuticn witnesses.
Accused tttt No. 2 shall regularly attend the " 'V court;
tsn*