Karnataka High Court
Rakesh Chopra @ Rakesh vs State Of Karnataka on 21 November, 2012
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21 S T DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11451 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
RAKESH CHOPRA @ RAKESH
S/O. JAYANTHILAL CHOPRA
AGE: 23 YEARS,
R/AT: R.K. GALLI, RAJIGIRI BUILDING
(VITTOBAL GALLI) 2ND FLOOR,
HOUSE NO.S-2, DURGAD BAIL,
HUBLI, PRESENTLY UNDER DURES AT
CENTRAL PRISONS, HUBLI
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. ANAND BEERANNAVAR ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
HUBLI TOWN POLICE STATION,
HUBLI TOWN SOUTH SUB DIVISION CIRCLE
HUBLI, DIST DHARWAD
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri.V.M.BANAKAR, ASPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN
S.C.NO.104/2012 PENDING CONSIDERATION ON THE FILE
:2:
OF THE I-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWD,
SITTING AT HUBLI, REGISTERED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 376, 511, 394,
302, 201 OF IPC.
This petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court made the following:
O R D E R
The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C. No.104/2012 pending before the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli. He is charge- sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 511, 394, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He is accused of having committed murder of one Smt. Roopa Agarwal W/o. CW-1-- OmPrakash Agarwal at about 10.30 a.m. on 24.08.2009 inside her house situated in 2 n d floor, Jainum Building, Sarobad Mattagali, Hubli and before committing her murder, the petitioner also accused of having attempted to commit rape. :3:
2. According to the prosecution, the murder was for gain and after committing murder of the deceased, the petitioner robbed cash of Rs.5,42,000/- and gold ornaments from the cup- board of almirah kept inside the bed room.
3. According to the prosecution, in the morning of 24.08.2009, the deceased and her husband Sri.Om Prakash Agarwal went to the temple and from there, she was brought to the vegetable market by her husband, where she was left and the husband went for his work. Thereafter, at about 12.45 p.m. on the same day, while the said Om Prakash Agarwal was working in the shop of M/s.Jain Marbles, he received a telephone call from CW-15/Rajendra Kumar Solanki, a neighbourer that his wife Roopa Agarwal is not well and asked him to come home immediately. Therefore, he came to the house and found his wife lying in a pool of blood inside :4: the bedroom of the house. He also noticed cash of Rs.5,30,000/- kept in the almirah and few gold ornaments were missing. Immediately, the said Om Prakash Agarwal lodged a report before the jurisdictional police alleging that his wife has been killed by someone and have robbed cash as well as gold ornaments. On the basis of the said report, case came to be registered and investigation was taken up.
4. The service of dog squad was secured and the finger print experts were also summoned. The sniffer dog did not lead to any clue. However, the finger print experts found some chance finger prints at the scene of occurrence which were taken. The Investigating Officer during the spot Mahazar found a piece of nail and few hairs at the scene of occurrence. He also noticed bite marks on the right shoulder of the deceased. He seized the piece of nail and hair. Thereafter, the :5: investigating officer suspected the role of husband of the deceased as also this petitioner apart from few others. It appears the finger prints of this petitioner apart from others were obtained and they were compared with the chance finger prints obtained from the scene of occurrence. The finger print experts submitted the report on 27.08.2009 to the effect that the chance finger prints does not tally with the finger prints of this petitioner, though two of the chance finger prints obtained from the scene of occurrence tallied with the finger prints of the husband of the deceased.
5. During the investigation, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination and the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination opined that the death was due to asphyxia consequent upon compression over the neck and the doctor were also of the opinion that :6: there were no signs suggestive of recent sexual intercourse.
6. During investigation, the statements of the neighbourers of the deceased were recorded which revealed that this petitioner was seen near the house of the deceased at or about 10.15 a.m. on the date of incident. The piece of nail seized from the scene of occurrence was sent for DNA examination along with the blood samples of the petitioner. During investigation, impression of teeth of the petitioner was obtained for the purpose of comparison with bite mark found on the dead body. The said examination revealed that the bite mark does not tally with the teeth impression of the petitioner.
7. During investigation, the petitioner was also subjected to polygraphic test. The report submitted by the Truth Foundation Labs, New Delhi, revealed that the analysis and evaluation of :7: the polygraph do not reveal deceptive responses on issue Nos.1 to 10 and according to the polygraph examination and analysis of polygrams, Rakesh/the petitioner herein is truthful to answers on issue Nos.1 to 10. To all the questions put to him during polygrafic examination, as mentioned in the report in relation to the murder of Roopa Agarwal, this petitioner had answered as 'No'. The DNA report received about two years later i.e., on 29.11.2011 indicated that the finger nail seized from the scene of occurrence tallied with the blood samples of the petitioner, though the hair seized did not tally with the blood samples of petitioner. On receipt of the said DNA report, the petitioner was formally arrested on 23.12.2011 and thereafter, subjected to judicial custody. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed on 21.03.2012. Thereafter, the case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions.
:8:
8. Before the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner sought relief of bail by presenting an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the said application came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
9. The petition is opposed by the respondent/State. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the records made available.
10. At this stage, as noticed supra, the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, as there are no direct evidence. According to the case of the prosecution as indicated above, there are only three circumstances to connect the petitioner to the crime alleged namely: (i) a piece of finger nail :9: found at the scene of occurrence tallying with blood samples of this petitioner; (ii) the petitioner was found near the house of the deceased in or about the time of the incident; (iii) the petitioner had deposited a huge sum of Rs.4,00,000/- into his bank account about three days after the incident.
11. No doubt, the DNA report which is received nearly more than two years after the incident revealed that the finger nail said to have been seized from the scene of occurrence tallied with the blood sample of this petitioner. As could be seen from the spot mahazar said to have been drawn on the date of the incident itself, the piece of finger nail was seized from the scene of occurrence on that date itself.
12. As could be seen from the report of finger print experts, the report was submitted on 27.08.2009 itself. From this it is clear that the : 10 : finger impressions of this petitioner had been obtained for the purpose of comparison before 27.08.2009. It is not forthcoming from the materials produced along with the charge-sheet, at the time of taking finger impressions of this petitioner, whether the missing of any of the finger nail was observed. The petitioner was available to the Investigating officer all through. It is not the case of the prosecution that at any point of time, the petitioner was subjected to medical examination. The chance finger prints did not tally with the finger prints of this petitioner. The bite mark found on the dead body also did not tally with the teeth impression of the petitioner.
13. At the earliest point of time, even the statement of this petitioner had been recorded as a witness in the case, wherein he had explained the circumstances in which he came near the house of the deceased. According to him, he was : 11 : asked by his father over phone to go near the house of the deceased since the husband of the deceased had received a phone call that his wife is not well. Accordingly, he went near the house of the deceased. Though according to the case of the prosecution, during the investigation, the blood stained T-shirt of the petitioner was seized and later subjected to forensic examination, the result of the examination revealed that the blood stains found on the T-shirt was not sufficient for examination and therefore, the results were inconclusive.
14. According to the prosecution, the jewels said to have been robbed from the scene of occurrence were thrown by this petitioner into a Corporation dust bin. Thus, the jewels said to have been robbed have not been recovered. Of course, the bank documents relating to the accounts of this petitioner revealed that a sum of : 12 : Rs.4,00,000/- had been credited to his account on 27.08.2009.
15. As could be seen from the inquest report, valuable gold ornaments were found on the dead body. From this it is prima facie clear that the assailant who committed murder of the deceased did not take away gold ornaments found on the dead body.
16. Of course from the medical evidence, it is prima facie clear that the death of the deceased was homicidal. However, at this stage, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that this petitioner was responsible for the homicidal death of deceased. From the materials on record, it is prima facie clear that the petitioner was very much available in town from the date of the incident upto the date of his arrest and he has co- : 13 : operated in the investigation of the case. There is no complaint of this petitioner having tampered prosecution evidences except the allegation that he said to have thrown the gold ornaments into a dust bin. Therefore, there is no likelihood of the petitioner tampering the prosecution evidences. There is no chance of this petitioner fleeing away from justice. Therefore, having regard to the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the relief of bail.
17. Hence, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in S.c. No.104/2012 on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two local sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge and subject to further conditions that:
: 14 :
i) The petitioner shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
ii) He shall appear before the trial court on all hearing dates without fail;
iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court concerned without express permission thereof.
iv) He shall mark his attendance fefore
the respondent Police on 15 t h of
each calendar month till the
disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK/-