Karnataka High Court
Sri Sridhar C M vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6882
CRL.A No. 76 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 76 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI SRIDHAR C M
S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT CHOKKREDDIPALLI VILLAGE
RONURU HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR - 563 135.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M R NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH BY KOLAR RURAL POLICE STATION
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KOLAR
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT. CHOWDAMMA
W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT JANNAGHATTA VILLAGE
SUGATURU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6882
CRL.A No. 76 of 2024
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON REULAR BAIL AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON 02.12.2023 IN SPL. S.C. IPC
AND SC/ST No.16/2023 (IN CR.No.269/2023 OF KOLAR RURAL
POLICE STATION) NOW WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
KOLAR, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 348, 120B, 114, 341
R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
1989 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant - accused No. 1 praying to set aside the order dated 02.12.2023 passed in Spl.SC IPC & SCST No. 16/2023 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar whereunder the bail application filed by appellant - accused No. 1 along with accused No. 2 seeking bail in crime No. 269/2023 of Kolar Rural Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 348, 120-B, 114, 341 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SCST (POA) Act, 1989 came to be rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for appellant - accused No. 1 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State. -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:6882 CRL.A No. 76 of 2024 Inspite of service of notice respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.
3. Case of the prosecution is that accused No. 3 had illicit relationship with accused No.1 (appellant herein) who is her aunt's son. The deceased was the husband of accused No. 3 and he came to know regarding the said illicit relationship and there were quarrels between accused No. 3 and her husband - deceased Krishnamurthy. The deceased was coming in the way of illicit relationship of accused No. 1 with accused No. 3 and he, in conspiracy with accused Nos. 2 and 3, conspired to kill the deceased. In furtherance of the said conspiracy on 29.05.2023 at 08.00 pm when the deceased was returning from Kolar on his bike, at that time, accused Nos.2 and 3 were waiting near the railway gate. At that time, the deceased told accused No.1 that he will file complaint against him and send him to jail. Enraged by that accused No. 1 kicked him and when the deceased fell down, accused No. 1 took iron rod kept in his bike and assaulted the deceased on his right hand and head. Thereafter, -4- NC: 2024:KHC:6882 CRL.A No. 76 of 2024 accused No.2 took the said rod and assaulted with the said rod on the deceased. The deceased died on the way to the hospital. On the complaint by the mother of the deceased a case came to be registered and after investigation charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the aforesaid offences. Accused No. 1 who is in judicial custody had filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for appellant - accused No. 1 would contend that on perusal of the statements of C.W.2
- Vinod and C.W.3 - Murali, there was pitch dark at the time of the incident and therefore, they identifying the accused persons is doubtful. He further contends that in the inquest there is no mention that C.W.2 and C.W.3 are stated to have last seen the deceased with the accused. Recovery of rod is joint recovery. As charge sheet is filed, appellant - accused No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation. With this he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to appellant - accused No.1. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:6882 CRL.A No. 76 of 2024
5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 - State would contend that accused No.1 who is the appellant herein had illicit relationship with accused No. 3 who is the wife of the deceased. The deceased was coming in the way of their illicit relationship and therefore, accused Nos. 1 to 3 conspired to kill the deceased. He contends that in furtherance of said conspiracy accused Nos.1 and 2 stopped the deceased, accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with iron rod on the head and hand and accused No. 2 also assaulted the deceased with iron rod. Blood stained rod has been recovered at the instance of accused persons. There is also seizure of blood stained T-shirt of appellant - accused No.1. Both rod and the T-shirt were found to be stained with blood. He contends that charge sheet material show prima facie case against appellant - accused No. 1 for offence alleged against him. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for appellant - accused No.1 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:6882 CRL.A No. 76 of 2024 State this Court has perused the impugned order and charge sheet material.
7. This appellant - accused No.1 is the aunt's son of accused No. 3. The deceased Krishnamurthy was the husband of accused No. 3. There was illicit relation of accused No.3 with accused No. 1 and the deceased came to know regarding the same and quarreled with his wife - accused No. 3. C.W.2 and C.W.3 are eye witnesses to the incident. Both have stated in their statements that on the date of incident they saw accused No.1 and another person stopping the deceased and assaulting him with iron rod. Even though it is stated that it was dark at that time, when they went further they saw and identified this appellant - accused No. 1. Both C.W.2 and C.W.3 have identified this appellant - accused No.1 at the spot at the time of incident. Even though the names of C.W.2 and C.W.3 have not been stated in the inquest it cannot be said that they are not eye witnesses to the incident. There is recovery of iron rod and clothes of appellant - accused No. 1 which were found to be blood stained. The Doctor -7- NC: 2024:KHC:6882 CRL.A No. 76 of 2024 who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased has opined that the death of the deceased is due to head injury sustained. On perusal of the entire charge sheet material there is a prima facie case against this appellant - accused No. 1. If the appellant - accused No. 1 is granted bail there is threat to the prosecution witnesses. Considering all these aspects learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of this appellant - accused No. 1. There are no grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant bail to appellant - accused No.1. Hence, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17