Karnataka High Court
J C Madhuchanra Kumar @ Madhu vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2013
Author: H.S.Kempanna
Bench: H.S.Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.KEMPANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6587 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. J. C. MADHUCHANRA KUMAR @ MADHU
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
S/O. LATE CHANDRA
RESIDING AT KATTERI HOSUR VILLAGE PANDAVAPURA
TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571419.
2. MAHESHA @ PAYASA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O. NAGARAJU
NEW LAYOUT HAROHALLI VILLAGE
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571419.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN C, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PANDAVAPURA POLICE STATION
MANDYA
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT
BANGALORE - 560001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B. VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)
***
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.204/2013 OF PANDAVAPURA P.S., MANDYA AND
C.C.NO.458/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE C.J. (JR. DN.)
AND J.M.F.C., PANDAVAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302
R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.No.458/2013 on the file of the J.M.F.C, Pandavapura, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC are before this Court praying for releasing them on bail.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 6-6-2013 at about 10/10.30 p.m. when the accused along with deceased Raju and CWs-2 to 4 were having their dinner at Nesargadabha along with hukka, the second petitioner/accused No. 2 questioned the deceased Raju as to why he left the services of accused No. 1 though he was taking care of him as his son. In response to the same, the deceased immediately retorted him saying he stayed with him (accused No.1) as his son 3 but accused No. 1 betrayed him by not providing loan for the purpose of performing his elder brother's marriage and so saying he abused accused No.1 in filthy language. Hearing the same, accused No. 1 questioned as to why he is abusing him in slang language, picked up a beer bottle and assaulted him, on account of which deceased sustained bleeding injury. Thereafter CWs-2 to 4 directed accused No.1 to take him to the hospital. Accordingly, they took the deceased. Thereafter, it is the case of the prosecution that the body of the deceased was found in a paddy field next day morning. The brother of the deceased took steps to file the complaint. On the basis of the same, case came to be registered and during investigation, petitioners were arrested on 8-6-2013 and on completion final report is filed against them for the aforesaid offences.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the statement of CW-2 reveal that in a heat of passion, accused No. 1 being enraged by the act of the 4 deceased has assaulted him with a beer bottle on his head, which has caused bleeding injury resulting in his death. The act of the accused is not pre-meditated. Therefore, he submits that the act of accused does not amount to murder but it amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, under these circumstances as the petitioners are in custody since 8-6-2013, they be released on bail.
4. Application filed by the petitioners is opposed by the State.
5. A perusal of the statement of CWs-2, 3 and 4 who are the eye-witnesses clearly reveals that accused No. 1 in a heat of passion on account of being enraged by the abusive words hurled at him by the deceased, has suddenly picked up the beer bottle and has assaulted on the head of the deceased which has caused him bleeding injury. This would go to show that the assault was not made with intention of committing murder. The act committed by him does not amount to culpable homicide amounting 5 to murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In that view of the matter and in the circumstances, as the petitioners are in custody since 8-6-2013, I do no find any justification to decline the request of the petitioners. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Petition is allowed.
2. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:-
i) The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 6
ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available to the investigating agency as and when required for the purpose of investigation.
Sd/-
JUDGE kvk