Karnataka High Court
Vinesh Shetty vs State By Konaje Police on 27 March, 2018
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.288/2018
BETWEEN:
VINESH SHETTY
S/O KARUNAKAR SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT CHANDRAVENI GUEST HOUSE
ROOM NO.2, INFRONT OF
RAILWAY STATION
KOPOLI, RAYAGADA DISTRICT
PIN CODE-410 203.
PERMANENTLY AT:
KANIMAR HOUSE
SHIRVA POST
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN CODE-574116.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJESH RAI K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY KONAJE POLICE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THIMMAPPA NAYAK
S/O LATE SANKAPPA NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT NO.B/305, SAMATHA
APARTMENT, AMARNAGAR
MULUNDU WEST
MUMBAI-400082
2
PERMANENTLY AT:
NADIGUTTU HOUSE
BALEPUNI VILLAGE
BANTWALA TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT-574211.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP FOR R-1;
V/O DATED 21.02.2018 NOTICE TO R-2 IS D/W)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
S.C.NO.101/2013 PENDING BEFORE THE FILE OF
HON'BLE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE IN RESPECT OF CRIME
NO.13/2003 FILED BY KONAJE POLICE FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341, 109, 120B, 302 R/W
149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner who has been arraigned as accused No.6 in S.C.No.101/2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 109, 120B, 302 r/w Section 149 IPC is seeking for quashing of said proceedings which is pending on the file of VI Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada.
3
2. Heard Sri Rajesh Rai, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri S Vishwa Murthy, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State. Perused the records.
3. It is the contention of learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that accused Nos.1 to 5 against whom similar allegations were made in the complaint have since been acquitted by the jurisdictional Sessions Court in S.C.No.12/2004 by a full fledged trial and eye witnesses - P.Ws.4 & 5 though have stated that they had seen Sri Vinesh committing murder of deceased Santhosh Shetty and Venugopal Naik by firing bullets to their heart and stomach, their testimony was not accepted by Sessions Court according to detailed discussion made in the judgment and as such, continuation of further proceedings against petitioner would be an abuse of process of law and it would not sub-serve the ends of justice. Hence, on these grounds, he seeks for proceedings pending against petitioner being quashed.
4
4. Per contra, learned HCGP would support the prosecution initiated against petitioner and contends that on account of petitioner - accused No.6 having absconded, split up charge sheet came to be filed and now he has been apprehended and supplementary charge sheet has been filed and leaned Sessions Judge, while acquitting accused Nos.1 to 5 has also opined that facts relating to gun shots fired by petitioner on the deceased cannot be discussed and as such, petitioner cannot claim to stand on the same footing as that of accused Nos.1, 3 to 5, who have since been acquitted. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. Perusal of the records would disclose that undisputedly, petitioner was not initially arraigned as accused when FIR came to be registered in Crime No.13/2003 on 05.03.2003. Subsequently, on the basis of voluntary statement made by one of the accused, petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.6. Since petitioner was absconding, split up charge sheet came to be filed in S.C.No.101/2013. However, other accused 5 persons came to be tried in S.C.No.12/2004. It is no doubt true that alleged eye witnesses to the incident were examined as P.Ws.4 & 5 who have stated facts relating to the alleged role played by the petitioner. However, learned Sessions Judge who has adjudicated S.C.No.12/2004 has not accepted their testimony since there was material inconsistencies.
6. Be that as it may. Insofar as allegations made against petitioner who is accused No.6 by the prosecution is that he had fired bullets from his revolver at deceased Santhosh Shetty and Venugopal Naik to their chest and stomach. Postmortem report also discloses the cause of death was as a result of firing. As to whether petitioner was responsible for murder of deceased Santhosh Shetty and Venugopal Naik? is an issue which has to be decided based on material which prosecution has relied upon before jurisdictional Sessions Court to bring home the guilt of the accused and same will have to be evaluated by the learned Sessions Judge after trial. At this stage, it cannot be 6 accepted that on the strength of evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, petitioner would be entitled for an order of acquittal or continuation of proceedings against petitioner would be an exercise in futility. Hence, this Court, without embarking upon conducting a roving enquiry as to whether evidence of P.Ws.4 & 5 is to be accepted or not, this petition stands rejected. Learned Sessions Judge shall take all reasonable steps to expedite the trial.
In view of rejection of this petition, I.A.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration and accordingly it stands rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE *sp