Karnataka High Court
Prakash Rudrappa Guddodgi Anr vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2012
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15673/2012
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15674/2012
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15673/2012
BETWEEN
1. SUBHAS MAGADEV GUDDODAGI
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
AND AT PRESENT PANCHAYAT MEMBER
OF UMARAJ VILLAGE
2. DEVENDRA MAHADEV GUDDODGI
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
BOTH ARE R/O UMARAJ VILLAGE
TQ. INDI, DIST. BIJAPUR
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANJAY A PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH CHADCHAN POLICE
2
DIST.BIJAPUR
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
GULBARGA
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ANURADHA M. DESAI, ADDL SPP)
CRL.P FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT TO, ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO. 14/2011 (S.C. NO. 82/2011) PENDING
BEFORE THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIJAPUR,
OF CHADCHAN POLICE STATION, DIST. BIJAPUR, WHICH
IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 143, 147,
148, 307, 302 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15674/2012
BETWEEN
1. PRAKASH RUDRAPPA GUDDODGI
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
2. PANDIT RUDRAPPA GUDDODGI
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
BOTH ARE R/O UMARAJ VILLAGE
TQ. INDI, DIST. BIJAPUR
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANJAY A PATIL, ADVOCATE)
3
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH CHADCHAN POLICE
DIST. BIJAPUR
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
GULBARGA
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ANURADHA M. DESAI, ADDL SPP)
CRL.P FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT TO, ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO. 14/2011 (S.C. NO. 82/2011) PENDING
BEFORE THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIJAPUR,
OF CHADCHAN POLICE STATION, DIST. BIJAPUR, WHICH
IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 143, 147,
148, 307, 302 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC.
THIS PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Accused No.4, 5, 6 and 7 are before this Court in Crime No.14/2011. Petition u/S 439 of Cr.P.C for the offences punishable u/Ss 302, 307 and other minor offence R/w 149 of IPC.
4
2. The case is registered by the Chadchan police station, Dist.Bijapur in Crime No.14/2011for the incident occurred on 06.02.2011. Investigation is completed and now chargesheet is filed. Accused No.8 approached this Court in Cril.P.No.2427/2012 obtained bail by its order dated 30.05.2012 and accused No.2 has also obtained bail by learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.82/2011 dated 28.12.2011.
3. The learned counsel submits petitioners before this Court against whom there are no overt acts as per the complaint. It is seen that these petitioners have used wooden club and as per the post mortem report of Mallanagouda, the cause of death was due to head injury and for Ramesh death is due to head injury and in case of Mahesh death is due to assault with sharp weapon and in view of the opinion of the doctor who has conducted post mortem of all these three deceased body, there is no expression that death is not due to assault said to have 5 been committed by the petitioners-accused No.4, 5, 6 and 7 and death is due to head injury and assault by sharp weapon. He has further submitted that as per complaint accused No.8 has committed offence by using wooden weapon. By considering the opinion for the cause of death due to head injuries, this Hon'ble Court granted bail, since accused No.8 used wooden club. Investigation is already completed and chargesheet is filed and these accused are in judicial custody for the last eighteen months. On the principle of parity, learned counsel submitted by relying on the order passed in Crl.P.2427/2012 dated 30.05.2012, that the similar treatment for compliance Article 14 and 21 of Constitution to be extended for these petitioners. In support of his submissions learned counsel relied on Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 (3) SCC 746 wherein it has been held that "When all the facts are similar in nature and for compliance of article 14 and 21 similar benefit to be extended for the similarly situated persons". Further it is submitted that these petitioners 6 against whom there is no overt acts are landed in jail for the last eighteen months and in compliance of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution, they are to be set at free. The cause of death as per post mortem report and opinion of the doctor and overt acts made in the complaint it is against accused No.1, 9 and 11 and not on these petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits to dismiss this petition by filing statement of objections. There is overt acts against the accused and formed with common object and committed offence by using deadly weapons and as per the inquest report, there were 29 cut injuries found on the body of Mahesh and from 2 inches to 10 inches and it was opined by the doctor that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to excessive bleeding from the injuries and he also noticed skull bone fracture. In respect of another deceased Mahesh father of the deceased sons and also the complainant he sustained 7 multiple injuries of fracture of frontal and parietal region of the skull and there is also injury marks on the chest wall and injury marks on front and back of abdomen wall his death was due to Hyper Volumic shock as a result of head injury. In respect of another deceased by name Ramesh who also suffered skull bone fracture on the parietal and frontal region he sustained injury marks on the chest wall and front and back of the abdomen wall, his death was also due to his Hyper Volumic shock as a result of head injury.
5. The learned counsel for the State submitted that accused No.2 approached this Court in Crl.P.No.15574/2011 u/S 439 of Cr.P.C the same was dismissed by this Court on 10.8.2011. and this fact has not been disclosed before this Court and secondly when the petition filed for bail was rejected by this Court without disclosing before the learned Sessions Judge for changed circumstance the benefit of bail was obtained by suppression of fact.
8
6. Heard both the sides.
7. I have gone through the statements of objections and records produced on behalf of the respondent-State.
8. The facts leading to the case are that on 6.2.2011 when three sons were proceeding along with their father these accused persons 1 to 14 formed unlawful assembly with common object to commit the said offences. One son escaped from this attack, ran and hide in place and from there he saw the offences committed by these accused on the deceased. In the attack made by these petitioners three persons succumbed to the injuries of which one is father and others are his sons. Counsel for the petitioner stated that on the principle of parity these petitioners are to be enlarged on bail. For the said submissions he is relied on the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.2427/2012 where at para-2 it is stated by this Court that the petitioner i.e. accused No.8 alleged to have assaulted deceased with 9 sickle on the shoulder and in the post mortem report it discloses that the death of the deceased was due to head injuries on the similar line similar overt acts made against these petitioners i.e. accused No.4,5,6 and 7 that they have committed offence by using wooden clubs that is not wooden clubs injuries caused the death. As per the post mortem report death is due to head injury and sharp injuries caused on the deceased Mahesh. The Judgment reported 2010 (3) SCC 746 states that when facts narration and overt acts are similar in nature and if the petitioners who are accused have also narrated similar circumstances and for the compliance of Article 14 and 21 the other petitioners are to be enlarged on bail. Very judgment is clear that for parity principle when all the facts are similarly narrated and disclosed the case in which accused No.8 has obtained bail, then the principle of parity can be pressed. It is referred in para-2 that the accused No.8 committed offence by using sickle whereas death is because of head injury and hence the learned Judge must have 10 thought that the committed offence by using clubs was the cause of death. This aspect when it is examined and the light of injuries caused on all the three deceased is not common in nature. In respect of deceased Mallangouda it is opined death is due to injury that is caused to head. The deceased Mahesh sustained multiple injuries skull bone fracture and in addition to that injuries marks on the chest wall injury marks and front and back of abdomen wall was found and it was opined that death is due to hyper volumic shock as a result of head injury. The cause of death opined by the doctor as head injury alone cannot read other injuries found on the body is to be seen. It is found on the body of Mahesh, that there were 29 cut injuries measuring 2 inches to 10 inches and in addition to skull fracture a similar injuries are also found on deceased Ramesh. When these are all the injuries found on the body and which were termed as cause of death then, principle of parity in para- 23 of judgment referred in supra where it has been held that "the principle of parity in criminal case is that where 11 the case of the accused is similar in all respects as that of the co-accused, then the benefit extended to one accused should be extended to the co-accused. In the judgment reported in 2003 SCC 708 between Akhil ali, Jahangir ali and Sayyad v/s State of Maharashtra Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that " as the second accused was placed on the same situation the appellant application Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution would not permit this Court to deny bail to co-accused. This judgment is also on the principle of parity. Hence, I do not find any similarities or parities for applying Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India.
8. Accused No.2 who has been denied bail by this Court Unless liberty is reserved or there are any changed circumstances it is not open to file petition for benefit u/S 439 of Cr.P.C before learned Sessions Judge and I do not clear whether dismissal of case in criminal petition was brought to the notice of learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.82/2011. Under this circumstance the parity could 12 not be pressed from the order passed in SC.No.82/2011 by the Addl. Sessions Judge Bijapur. From the complaint and facts it is disclosed that there is faction in the village In case of granting bail, these petitioners have would definitely threaten the prosecution witnesses. Under these circumstance it is not a case for grant of bail Accordingly, petitioners are rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu