Karnataka High Court
Sidram S/O Appasaheb Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15184/2013
BETWEEN:
Sidram S/o Appasaheb Patil,
Age: 28 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Donnur, Taluk: Basavana Bagewadi,
District Bijapur. ... PETITIONER
(By Shri R.S.Lagali, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
Represented by the PSI,
Sindagi Police Station. ... RESPONDENT
(By Shri Sanjay A Patil, Additional State Public Prosecutor)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Criminal Procedure Code, by the Advocate for the petitioner
praying that this Court to release the petitioner on bail in
connection with Special Case No.24/2012 (Sindagi Police
2
Station Crime No.131/2012) pending on the file of Special
Judge (II Additional Sessions Judge) Bijapur, which is
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
148, 120(B), 109 376, 302, 404 read with Section 149 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and 3, 2 and 5 of Scheduled Caste and
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant Kasturibai, resident of Hakkinagutti Village was the sister of Shivamma. She has lodged a complaint before the Sindagi police station against unknown persons. Initially to the effect that Shivamma who was a Devadasi by profession was dead. However, though she was a Devadasi she had a son, aged about 15 years. Shivamma was last seen when she left the village on 05.06.2012. Thereafter she did not return. On 6.06.2012 at about 1.00 p.m. one Basavaraj Dodamani had telephoned the 3 complainant and informed her that there was a dead body of a female lying near the land of one Manoj and that she resembled her sister, Shivamma. Therefore, the complainant went to the said land along with her relatives and identified the dead body and thereafter lodged a complaint on the same day which was registered in Crime No.131/2012 for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. The Circle Police Inspector, Sindagi Police Station, later found that Shivamma also belonged to a Scheduled Caste and therefore submitted a requisition to the jurisdictional Magistrate to incorporate the Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for brevity) Thereafter by virtue of insertion of the above said provision the Deputy Superintendent of Police took over the investigation.
4
3. According to the prosecution the motive behind the death of Shivamma was that she was working in the land of the petitioner as an agricultural labourer and the petitioner had developed an illicit relationship with her, though the petitioner was married man. Shivamma had started demanding that he marry her, the petitioner went on postponing the subject and tried to avoid the same. Finally the petitioner decided that the only way he could stop the nuisance was to get rid of her and hence took the assistance of accused No.5 namely Shrimantraya who hatched a plan along with the other accused Nos.1 to 4. As per the plan, on 5.6.2012 at about 10.00 a.m., the petitioner had called Shivamma to come to Sindagi at about 4.00 p.m. and he along with the other accused went on three motorcycles and the petitioner had waited near Ambedkar Circle in Sindagi. When Shivamma came he took her on his motorcycle. It is alleged that he used the mobile phone of the deceased, to call accused No.5, to inform him that Shivamma had come to Sindagi and that the plan was on. Thereafter the petitioner is said to have 5 taken Shivamma towards Chikka Sindagi and the other accused had followed them on their motorcycles. They all met at Madhuvan Dhaba and had drinks followed by dinner, when it was almost dark the petitioner is said to have told Shivamma that they would to go Bijapur and they left. All of them were on motorcycles with the others riding pillion. Shivamma was riding pillion with the petitioner and when they crossed Devarahipparagi Village and nearing Shivanagi Village it was dark, but it was not so dark enough for them to carry out their plan. So they turned around towards Sindagi and when they came near Kannolli Village they found a secluded place where petitioner No.1 is said to have stopped and taken Shivamma to the land near by and had engaged her in sexual intercourse. Then he had called out to accused Nos.2 to 4 who immediately came to Shivamma and immobilized her and with her own saree she was strangulated, while the other accused smashed her face with stones. This was at about about 8.30 p.m. Then the jewellery on the neck of Shivamma was removed as well, as her 6 cell phone. All the accused returned back to Sindagi, had more drinks in the Dhaba and then disbursed.
4. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would strongly object to the bail petition and has filed statement of objections narrating the sequence of events and the reasoning of the prosecution in seeking to contest the bail petition. It is claimed by the prosecution that during the course of investigation and further statements and the complainants that Shivamma was using a cell phone bearing No.9480171861 and the call sheet relating to the said cell phone was obtained. The call records were examined, which revealed that on 5.6.2012 there were calls from another cell phone bearing No.8762976350 to the phone of Shivamma and as such further investigation was carriedout. On 29.6.2012 it was found that the said cell phone belonged to accused No.5 and on credible information they arrested accused No.5, who in turn had made a voluntary statement and admitted that the petitioner on 7 5.6.2012,called him on the cell phone which was being used by Shivamma about five times and also later in the night and recounted the manner in which the murder of Shivamma was committed. Thereafter, having traced the petitioner to Nagarhalli Village. The petitioner was arrested. Accused No.2 and 4 were also arrested and they in turn had made voluntary statements admitting the crime. The jewellery was recovered from the petitioner from the farmhouse of the petitioner. It is on this basis that the chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner and the other four accused. Materials have been collected in so far as the illicit relationship between the petitioner and Shivamma is concerned. Therefore, it is contended that the chain of events and circumstances are ranged against the petitioner and it is in this vein that the bail petition of the petitioner was contested before the Trial Court. The Trial Court having rejected the bail petition the petitioner is before this court.
8
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner while claiming that so called conspiracy hatched by petitioner No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 4 as being imaginary and that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. It is pointed out that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the manner in which the sequence of event are narrated would necessarily indicate that several members of the public would have seen the accused together with the deceased. There is not a single witness whose statement has been recorded to substantiate the case of the prosecution. The entire theory of the prosecution is based on the alleged voluntary statements of accused Nos.2 to 4. This by itself is not sufficient to bring home the charge. The petitioner is not before this court seeking his acquittal but only seeks bail and therefore for the prosecution to claim that a prima facie case has been made out, the call sheet and the call records of mobile cell phone of accused No.2 and Shivamma would have nothing to do with the involvement of the petitioner. The claim that the petitioner was having an illicit relationship with 9 Shivamma and that of her harassing the petitioner to marry her led to the conspiracy being hatched is a matter, which would have to be established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. This is possible only at the trial. In the absence of any prima facie case in this regard when the primary motive alleged against the petitioner is not capable of being established prima facie to hold that the petitioner was instrumental in having caused the death of Shivamma cannot be accepted on the face of it. The petitioner is a married man with two children and a respectable person owning land. Therefore, the allegations and the continued custody of the petitioner has already damaged his reputation and the same being continued indefinitely in the face of the sketchy material that is sought to be cited in support of prima facie case of the prosecution is not at all sustainable and the court below having taken a view that it was sufficient to bring home the charge was an unfair and unjust conclusion. The deceased admittedly was a Devadasi and it is not known as to the number of relationships that she had maintained and the 10 possible reasons for her death. Hence, the theory of the prosecution naming the petitioner alone as having had a relationship with the deceased is unnatural to contend that the petitioner was keeping the woman as his mistress and also to state that she was an agricultural labourer working on his land. This is hardly capable of being accepted, if indeed the petitioner was maintaining her as his mistress, he would certainly have kept her in comfort and would not be expected to exploit her labour and also keep her as his mistress. Therefore, the learned counsel would contend that the prosecution has not made out a case whatsoever at this point of time and that the petitioner ought to be enlarged on bail.
6. Given the circumstances of the case and the accused Nos.2 to 4 specifically having revealed the sequences of events and the phone calls exchanged between the petitioner and accused No.5, who are said to be related to the petitioner has 11 certainly made out a strong prima facie case. Though on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner may by right in the submission that the allegations now made by itself would not make out a case for the prosecution for conviction on the ground that the allegations have been established beyond all reasonable doubt that the same shall be tested at the trial. At present the allegations do seem cogent and plausible therefore, it may not be said that the prima facie case has not been demonstrated by the prosecution. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE msr