Karnataka High Court
Hanamant S/O Magundappa Hulasageri vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2021
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 08 T H DAY OF JULY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.101186/2021
BETWEEN:
HANAMANT S/O M AGUNDAPPA HULA SAGERI
AGE: 25 YEARS , OCC A GRICULTURE,
R/O NANDIKESHW AR VILLA GE,
BADAMI TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.J BASAVA RAJ, ADV OCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(THROUGH BADAM I P.S.,)
REPRES ENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD-580011.
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI , HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION, ENLARGE
THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN
S.C.NO.122/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS J UDGE, BAGA LK OT
(CR.NO.77/ 2019 REGISTERED IN BADAMI POLICE
STATION) CHARGE SHEETED FOR THE OFFENCES U/S
376, 376(2)( L), 307, 325, 451, 380 OF I PC, PENDIN G
TRIAL OF THE CAS E.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the accused under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.77/2019 of Badami Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(L), 307, 325, 451, 380 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).
2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Mallangouda has filed the complaint stating that he has two sisters one of them is unsound mind (victim) and for the said reason she is not married and both his sisters are staying in his house. It is further stated that 3 on 17.05.2019, as there was fare in the village, the complainant, his wife and sister went to temple to attend religious custom and the victim sister stayed in the house and was attending the house hold work. The complainant returned to the house at 4.00 p.m. and he found his sister near the kitchen with bite marks, injury on her private part, blood was oozing from the nose and swelling on her neck, and she was not in a position to talk. It is further stated that some unknown person forcibly took her to the kitchen, committed sexual assault, bitten on her person, tried to cause death by squeezing her neck and cloths had became dirty and washed the same. It is further stated that the incident might have taken place between 3.00 to 4.00 p.m. and the complainant does not know who actually 4 committed the offence. The injured was given first aid on that day and on the next day, she was taken to Government Hospital, Bagalkot for treatment. The touch phone belonging to the complainant was also stolen and the same was switched off. The statement of the complainant came to be recorded in the hospital and the case came to be registered for the aforesaid offences. The police after investigation have filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(L), 307, 325, 451, 380 of IPC.
3. The accusation leveled in the charge sheet is that on 17.05.2019, there was fare in the village, the complainant and other family members in order to attend religious custom went to the temple at 3.00 p.m. by leaving the victim sister in the house as she has mentally 5 unsound. The petitioner accused on seeing the victim alone in the house trespassed into the house at 3.00 p.m. lifted her to kitchen and near the furnace committed rape on her, when the victim attempted to escape, the accused hit her head to the ground and caused injuries, bitten on her person and he stolen the mobile phone of the complainant. The petitioner was arrested on 19.05.2019. The petitioner filed bail application in S.C.No.122/2019, seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Baglakot, by order dated 29.04.2021. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 6
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, has not committed any offence as alleged and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He contends that the alleged incident has taken place on 17.05.2019 and the complaint came to be filed against unknown persons on 18.05.2019. He contends that the petitioner accused is in judicial custody since 19.05.2019 for more than 2 years and evidence is not yet began. He contends that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. The petitioner accused came to be implicated on the basis of further statement of CW.1 and statement of CWs.5, 7 and 8. On perusal of the charge sheet material there is no prima facie case against the petitioner for 7 the offences alleged. As the charge sheet has been filed, the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The medical examination report of the victim reveals that she has sustained several injuries on her face and also bite marks. The finger print found on the stainless steel utensil was tallied with the finger print of the petitioner accused. The petitioner's bite marks were compared with the photo of teeth of petitioner accused and the expert opined that the said bite marks are caused by the petitioner accused. The petitioner accused who 8 has been examined by the doctor, was found abrasion on both knee joint measuring 1½ cm. He contends that on perusal of the entire charge sheet material, there is prima facie case against the petitioner accused for the offences alleged. If, the petitioner is granted bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records.
8. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. There 9 are circumstances to connect the alleged crime to the petitioner accused. Those circumstances are that:
(i) CW.5 has seen the accused entering the house of victim and CWs.7 and 8 have seen the accused coming out of the house on the date of the incident at the time of incident.
(ii) The mobile phone of CW.1 which has been stolen from the house, has been recovered from the house of petitioner accused at his instance.
(iii) The finger print mark on the stainless steel utensil is found tallied with the finger print mark of the petitioner accused.
(iv) The bite marks found on the face and chest of the victim were found tallied with the photo of teeth of the petitioner accused.10
(v) There were abrasion present on both knee joint measuring 1 ½ cm of the accused.
9. All these circumstances connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. The offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that there are no grounds for grant of bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
The observations made in the present order shall not influence the trial Judge.
Sd/-
JUDGE RM