Karnataka High Court
Shri. Prakash Karanure vs State Of Karnataka on 8 March, 2013
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10313/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI PRAKASH KARANURE,
S/O CHANDRAPPA KARANURE,
AGE:30 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O KERUR BANANATIKODI,
TAL:CHIKODI, DIST:BELGAUM.
2. SHRI VITHAL BADKAR,
S/O SHRIKANT BADKAR,
AGE:19 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT/AGRICULTURE,
R/O JODKURLI,
TQ:CHIKODI, DT:BELGAUM. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHIKODI POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.S.PATIL, HCGP)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C SEEKING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL WHO ARE ACCUSED
NOS.1 AND 2 IN C.C.NO.69/2013 (CRIME NO.291/2012) ON THE
FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKODI
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC.302, 201, 506 R/W
34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The complainant is the daughter of the deceased. In the complaint it is stated that about 2 years ago, the complainant was given in marriage to one Yallappa Poojari of Bedigoudanatti and that after the death of complainant's father and brothers, complainant used to visit Jodakurli regularly. It is further alleged that two years prior to the incident, the mother of the complainant had given a hand loan of Rs.35,000/- to accused No.1 in the presence of Mr.Siddappa Bendigeri and Vittal Badkar/accused No.2. It is alleged that accused No.1 had not returned the said amount and was threatening the deceased with dire consequences if she would demand the money.
3
3. Further, on 06.09.2012, the complainant was informed by Mr.Siddappa Bendigeri that her mother had fallen in the well and died. Thereafter, the complainant along with her husband, came and saw the body and found injuries on her head. Accordingly, on 07.09.2012, a UDR No.50/2012 was registered. Post- mortem was conducted by the doctor on the body of the deceased at Chikodi Government Hospital. On 25.09.2012, the complainant was called upon by the police and informed that as per the doctor, cause of death was due to assault on head by some hard weapon and after the assault, the body might have been thrown into well. It is further alleged that due to non-payment of hand loan, accused Nos.1 to 3 have assaulted the deceased with some hard weapon and have thrown the dead body into well belonging to the deceased. Then, a complaint came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC in Cr.No.291/2012.
4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of CW-12 who is arrayed as an eye witness to the incident has not been mentioned in the UDR but interestingly as on the date of the complaint i.e., on 25.09.2012, he was forced to give statement before the respondent/police on the basis of which these petitioners have been falsely implicated. By referring to the Post Mortem report, the learned counsel submits that the death is due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to diffuse cerebral haemorrhage, and hence prays for enlargement of petitioners on bail.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader has filed the statement of objections and relied on the statement of CW-12. He submits that the incident has taken place as accused No.1 had taken land loan of Rs.35,000/- from the deceased two years prior to the incident and as he could not return the same, he has committed the murder.
5
6. I have carefully examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the post mortem report and also the statement of CW-12. It is found from the complaint that accused No.1 had taken hand loan of Rs.35,000/- from the deceased and since he could not repay the same, he committed the murder of the deceased. Under these circumstances, it is found that accused No.1 is the cause for death and there is no case made out against accused No.2. Hence, accused No.2 has made out a case for bail; and the petition against accused No.1 requires to be rejected.
7. Therefore, the petition as against accused No.2 is allowed whereas the petition against accused No.1 is rejected. The accused No.2 shall be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:
i. The accused No.2 shall offer self bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only), 6 with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
ii. The accused No.2 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below without the leave of the Court.
iii. The accused No.2 shall offer all cooperation in the investigation of the offence.
iv. The accused No.2 shall not, in any manner seek to tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(sd/-) JUDGE Jm/-