Karnataka High Court
Sri T S Muthuraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2017
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MRS JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2219 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI T.S.MUTHURAJU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O SRI SHIVANNA,
R/AT:THOPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
2. SRI RAMALINGA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O NAGAIAH,
R/AT:THOPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
3. SRI JAGADEESHA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O SRI SIDDAIAH,
R/AT:THOPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
4. SRI T.D.DEEPAK
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
S/O SRI DEVARAJU,
R/AT:THOPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
2
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
5. SRI T.D.YOGESH @ YOGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
S/O SRI DEVARAJU,
R/AT:THOPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
PRESENTLY R/AT #172, 4TH CROSS,
CHANNE GOWDA, L/O MADDUR TOWN,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401
6. SRI T.D.SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
S/O SRI DEVRAJU,
R/AT:THOPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
PRESENTLY R/AT:#172, 4TH CROSS,
CHANNEGOWDA L/O MADDUR TOWN,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV.,
SRI SATYANARAYANA S.CHALKE , ADV., AND
SRI SARAVANA S., ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MADDUR POLICE STATION,
MADDUR CIRCLE AND TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
3
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS DY.S.P.
CIS, CARLTON HOUSE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN CR.NO.582/2016 OF MADDUR
P.S., MANDYA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147,
148, 504, 323, 307, 302, 114 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents- State.
The respondent-Police have charge sheeted 20 accused persons in their Crime No.582/2016 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 307, 302, 109, 114 and 120(B) read with Section 149 of IPC. The petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 6. 4
2. The gist of the allegation is, during the evening hours of 25.12.2016, the accused persons formed unlawful assembly armed with lethal weapons and picked up quarrel with the complainant - Sri T.H.Honnaiah and his brother Muthuraju alias Koti and Nandeesha in respect of the incident that had occurred in the morning. Accused Nos.1 and 2 stabbed Muthuraju alias Koti and accused No.3 stabbed Nandeesha, thereby causing fatal injuries and assaulted C.Ws with weapons. Both the victims expired on the way to the hospital. C.Ws.1 to 8 are the eye witnesses, out of them C.Ws.1, 2 and 6 are the injured eye witnesses.
3. Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation sofar as accused No.4 is concerned, he assaulted the complainant with an iron rod and the injuries as per the wound certificate is simple in nature. The allegation against accused Nos.5 and 6 is, they stabbed the complainant with a knife below umbilical. As per 5 the wound certificate no such injury was found on the complainant below umbilical. So far accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, they stabbed Muthuraju alias Koti with a steal knife having plastic handle, but the post mortem report reveals that the injury was wedge shaped, hence possibility of steal knife causing wedge shape injury is impossible. Accused No.3 has stabbed deceased Nandeesha with a knife. Said knife is recovered from a public place in open yard.
4. Opposing the petition, learned HCGP submits that the deceased Nandeesha suffered stab injury on the chest and the knife used by accused No.3 is recovered at his instance under a mahazar. So far the knives used by accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, they are recovered at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. At this stage, there is clinching evidence on record about the possibility of involvement of the petitioners in the alleged incident, when proved during trial is 6 punishable with major punishment. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for bail.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it is a group clash involving about 30 to 40 members. It is highly impossible that the complainant could meticulously observe and give details of the incident with accuracy. In fact, the counter complaint is registered on the complaint of accused No.1 and the matter is still under investigation. At this stage, it cannot be said that as to who is aggrieved and who is the aggressor. The petitioners/accused persons are not having any criminal antecedents and they are the permanent residents of the cause title address and family holders. Investigation since complete, they may be enlarged on bail.
6. As per the complaint allegation, it emanates that the incident occurred at 6.45 p.m., on 25.12.2016. The statement of the complainant is recorded at 2.30 a.m., of the following 7 day. The complainant cites the name of all 20 accused persons. Visualizing the scenario, it cannot be said that each of the accused persons was a member of an unlawful assembly having common object to cause the murder of the deceased persons. However, the overt-act attributed against accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 is visibly not corroborated by the medical evidence. Hence, there is no impediment to enlarge accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 on bail. Accused No.1 is said to be the Manager of a Bank, who had visited the village, since his brother was injured in a group clash in the morning.
7. It is further noticed from prosecution papers that the weapons are seized from a open space after one month of the incidence at the instance of accused No.2 and after a time gap of six days at the instance of accused No.3. The eye witnesses have consistently referred to the overt-act of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in causing the murder of Muthuraju alias Koti and Nandeesha. The discrepancy between the ocular evidence and 8 the medical evidence is onus on the prosecution to explain during trial. The discrepancy, if any in the prosecution evidence is a matter to be looked into at the time of evaluation of evidence at final stage as regards these 3 accused are concerned having regard to specific role attributed to them in the alleged incident. In the considered opinion of this court, at this stage, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are not entitle for bail.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed insofar as petitioners Nos.4, 5 and 6/accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 are concerned.
Petition is rejected as against petitioners No.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3. However, liberty is reserved to them to move fresh bail petition before the trial Court after the statement of the vital witnesses is recorded.
Insofar as petitioners No.4, 5 and 6 are concerned, they are enlarged on bail in Crime No.582/2016 registered by the respondent-Police, subject to following conditions: 9
(i) They shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;
(ii) They shall attend the Court regularly on all hearing dates;
(iii) They shall not terrorize the prosecution witnesses.
Having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
Sd/-
JUDGE PB