Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shashikala @ Shekavva W/O Babu ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 August, 2018
Equivalent citations: 2018 (4) AKR 517
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRL. P. NO. 101312/2018
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHASHIKALA @ SHEKAVVA,
W/O BABU HUNDEKAR, AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O PLOT NO.3,
JAYANAGAR, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI,
NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.
- RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, GOVT. PLEADER)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED
NO. 5 ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH VIDYANAGAR POLICE
STATION CRIME NO. 35/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/S 143, 147, 148, 302, 120(B) AND 201 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC &
ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused no.5 u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. in S.C. No. 70/2018 arose in Crime No. 35/2018 of Vidyanagar Police Station, Hubballi, for the offences punishable u/S 143, 147, 148, 302, 120-B, 201 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC. since from the date of arrest of this accused, she is in judicial custody. Therefore, the counsel is praying for enlarging her on regular bail amongst the grounds urged therein.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the records.
3. It transpires in the case of the prosecution that the complainant Basappa Hundekar lodged a complaint on 13.03.2018 alleging that his son, namely, Dr. Babu Basappa Hundekar was carrying on his medical profession at Sushruta Hospital along with other partners at Vidyanagar, Hubballi. He had many dealings and partnership business with his 3 brother-in-law Naveen Mulkigoudar, who is said to be arraigned as accused no.1 in the crime. Due to the money transactions between the deceased Dr. Babu and the said Naveen, who is said to be his brother-in-law that there some dispute on 12.03.2018 at around 1 pm, the complainant who called his son Dr. Babu on his mobile phone but the said Babu did not receive the phone call from his father and despite of repeated calls in several times, the complainant along with his brother who rushed to Hubballi and inquired about his son Dr.Babu at Shivashakthi Hospital and they stated that the said Babu had left the hospital at around 11 a.m. The complainant again called his son Dr. Babu to his mobile phone it was switched off as reply. It is further transpired that again on 13.03.2018 the complainant called his son Babu on his Mobile and it was found to be switched off, as there was no proper reply to his call, then he rushed to Hubballi and enquired about his son Dr.Babu, called his wife- accused no.5 herein, she told that her brother Naveen, said to be accused no.1 herein, has taken Dr. Babu at around 12 4 noon from his house. Thereafter, there is no message regarding Dr. Babu. At around 6 p.m. Naveen said to be arraigned as accused no.1, being the brother-in-law of Dr.Babu was found two mobiles of the complainant's son was found in his possession but informed that Dr.Babu was to pay certain sum for him for which he had taken car and left Dr.Babu in Dharwad. The complainant suspected with Naveen, said to be the accused no.1, perhaps abducted Dr.Babu, who is none other than the brother-in-law and took possession of his car and mobiles and concealed his son in some unknown place and requested the Police to investigate the matter relating to the death of his son Dr. Babu.
4. Based upon the complaint filed by the complainant, the case in Crime No. 35/2018 came to be registered for the offence punishable u/S 363 against the accused Naveen. During the course of investigation the Police have apprehended the accused Naveen on 14.03.2018, subsequently recorded his voluntary statement wherein he 5 has stated the alleged commission of offence of death of Dr.Babu. The voluntary statement of the accused Naveen that Dr. Babu has given an amount of Rs.50 lakhs to him, i.e., accused Naveen and accused No.5, being the wife of Dr. Babu, for establishment of a car service center in the name and style as Sri Rajarajeshwari Service Station. Accordingly, they were running the service station but the same was not successful and he had incurred loss to run the service station. Deceased Babu said to be the brother in law of Naveen who was insisting him to return the amount of Rs.50 lakhs. For that reason, Naveen was angry about his brother in law Dr. Babu. The deceased Babu who has an extra- marital affair with one Sujaya Bangera who is cited as C.W.42 in the charge sheet. Her statement has been recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of his investigation. She has stated in her statement that she was working as a Nurse in Sushrutha hospital, the same was running by Dr.Babu with the partnership of others. Accused No.5- Shashikala said to be the wife of the deceased Dr.Babu when 6 asked about his relationship with the aforesaid lady, he used to assault her. For this reason, that accused no.5 was also angry with the deceased Dr. Babu.
5. Therefore, accused No.1 Naveen as well as accused No.5 Shashikala said to be hatching a plan to eliminate Dr. Babu along with other accused, said to be having extra marital relationship with C.W.42 Smt. Sujaya Bangera. The conspiracy held by accused nos.1 and 5 with other accused to providing Rs. 1,00,000/-. Accused No.2 took knife in a bag and came along with accused-Issmail at around 11 a.m. to the house of accused No.1 Naveen. At around 12 noon Dr.Babu, who came to his house, at that time, accused no.1- Naveen being the brother of this accused no.5 said to be assaulted the deceased with means of rod on the part of his leg and took him into his bed room and forced him not to insisting him to repay the amount in a sum of Rs.50 lakhs and also putting pressure on the deceased to end the extra marital affairs with C.W.42 Smt. Sujaya Bangera, who is 7 working as a Nurse in Sushrutha Hospital. When Dr. Babu refused to insisting him to pay the money accused no.2 was also assaulted the deceased on his head and face with means of iron road, accused no.3 assaulted Dr. Babu with means of knife twice on the left side of the chest part with the same knife accused-Ismail said to be assaulted on the right side chest part of the deceased Dr. Babu and committed murder at the scene of crime. Subsequently the dead body of Dr.Babu had been carried in a car and burnt the body for disappearance of the evidence to escape from the legal punishment.
6. Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has taken me through the accusation made in the complaint and so also the statement of C.W.42 Sujaya Bangera, C.W.43 Sunita, who being a maid servant in the house of this accused and deceased Dr.Babu but the deceased who had the extra marital affairs with the said C.W.42-Sujaya Bangera. Due to this extra marital affairs 8 with her by the deceased, the accused Shashikala said to be the sister of the accused no.1 Naveen had conspired to each other along with the other accused to eliminating the deceased Dr. Babu. But there is no direct overt act attributed against this accused Shashikala, said to be the wife of the deceased Babu and so also the sister of the accused no.1. But the materials which collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation by recording the statement of several witnesses and laid the charge sheet against the accused that the accused had committed murder of the deceased Dr.Babu and the dead body has been carried from the scene of crime and the dead body has been burnt to cause disappearance of the evidence.
7. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the voluntary statement of accused no.1- Naveen, who is no other than the brother in law of the deceased Dr. Babu as well as brother of the accused no.5- Shashikala, due to his voluntary statement that the other 9 accused have been apprehended by the Investigating Officer and so also recording the voluntary statement of the remaining accused, viz., Rakesh, Ismail and Nandish, based upon their, I.O. have been seized the car said to be used for having carried the dead body of Dr. Babu and so also the mobile set under mahazar, in the presence of the panch witnesses, the iron rod said to be used by the accused for having to assault on the person of the deceased Babu. Same was also seized at the instance of the accused Rakesh, accused-Naveen and the accused-Ismail, said to be used by inflicting of injuries on the vital part of the head as well as on the legs, but the accused Shashikala did not participate at the time of committing the murder of the deceased and assaulted with means of iron rod by the accused, but she has been lugged into the alleged crime merely because she is the wife of the deceased and so also she was being in connivance with the accused Naveen, said to be her brother as the deceased had marital affair with Sujaya-C.W.42. C.W.50- Sunayana, being a daughter, who has given her statement 10 before the I.O. during the course of investigation that when she had returned to the house that she asked her mother regarding the spectacles of her father Dr. Babu, the same has been revealed in her statement. However, the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, but the accused Shashikala did not participate with the other accused for the elimination of the deceased Dr. Babu said to be her husband and also be committing murder as narrated in the charge sheet, the accused who is in judicial custody since from the date of her arrest and moreover that her daughter, C.W.50- Sunayana who is a college going student. Therefore, the accused no.5-petitioner herein is very much required to be present in the house to look after the affairs of her daughter- C.W.50-Sunayana. On all these grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and seeking for the relief of bail as where the accused no.5-petitioner is ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court. 11
8. Per contra learned Govt. Pleader for the State has taken me through the accusation made in the complaint as well as the voluntary statement of the accused no.1-Naveen, who is no other than the brother of this accused-Shashikala and also being the brother-in-law of the deceased Dr. Babu, who had tendered an amount of Rs.50 lakhs to Naveen for the purpose of running a car service station. But his business had not been successful. Therefore, the accused No.1-Naveen as well as his sister-accused Shashikala said to be hatching a plan with the other accused to eliminate the deceased Dr.Babu. The deceased Dr.Babu who had an extra marial affair with C.W.42-Smt.Sujaya, who is working as a Nurse in Sushrutha Hospital, which is running by the deceased with his partners. But this Sujaya who had illicit relationship with the deceased Dr. Babu, the same has been asked by the accused no.1 Naveen to leave the extra marital affairs with her and also insisting his brother in law Dr.Babu not to ask to repay the amount in a sum of Rs.50 lakhs which was tendered by the deceased. Because of these aspects that the 12 accused no.1-Naveen who is hatching a plan with his sister- accused no.5-Shashikala and other accused and assaulted with means of iron rod by choosing the vital part of the head. Subsequent to committing murder, the dead body had been carried in a car and burnt for the purpose of screening of the evidence from the legal punishment. The same is reflected in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of C.W.42- Sujaya, C.W.43-Sunitha, C.W.44-Mushappa Gowda and C.W.46-Smt. Parvathi, said to be father-in-law and mother-in- law of the deceased Dr.Babu, C.W.50-Kum.Sunayana being the daughter of the deceased as well as the accused no.5- Shashikala, their statement reveals that the deceased Dr.Babu was murdered by the accused in his house. On all these grounds as urged by the learned Govt. Pleader for the State and seeking for dismissing the bail petition filed by this accused.
13
9. Keeping in view the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Govt. Pleader for the State relating to the case in Crime No. 35/2018, it is relevant to state that, during the course of investigation the i.O. has recorded the statement of several witnesses and so also conducted spot mahazar as well as seizure mahazar relating to seizure of mobile and car under mahazar in the presence of Naveen-accused no.1, and other accused. The accused no.1 Naveen and so also the accused Rakesh, Ismail and Nandish had given voluntary statement. But this accused Shasikala said to be the wife of the deceased Dr. Babu. The entire case of the prosecution supposed to be reveals that C.W.42 Smt.Sujaya, said to be the Nurse in the Sushrutha Hospital, which was run by the deceased along with his partners. C.W.43-Sunitha, said to be the maid servant in the house of this accused as well as the deceased Dr. Babu. Their statement was also recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation and C.W.44 and C.W.46 are none other than the father-in-law as well as mother-in-law of 14 the deceased Dr.Babu, that they have given a statement before the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, that they rushed to the scene of crime and after got information about the murder of Dr.Babu. C.W.50- Sunayana who being the daughter of this accused no.5 as well as deceased, has given statement before the I.O. during the course of investigation and stated that while she returned to home on the day of the incident that she asked her mother- Shashikala about the spectacles of her father Dr.Babu. C.W.97-Rathan Kumar Jeeragyala being the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet against the accused. C.W.96-Sri S.P. Naik, is the Police Officer who conducted part of the investigation. The entire investigation as done by C.W.97 as during the course of investigation, he has recorded statements of several witnesses and so also conducted mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and so also conducted inquest over the dead body of Dr.Babu and the dead body has been sent for the purpose of conducting autopsy, the same is also find place in the charge sheet 15 produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the purpose of perusal. However, the charge sheet is laid against the accused by the I.O. But this accused who is none other than the wife of the deceased Dr.Babu. However, the materials which are collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation is enough to lay charge sheet against the accused as where the accused is required to be facing of trial with the other accused. Whereas, the materials in which it has collected by the I.O. against the accused-Shashikala are concerned, it is said that, it is not enough materials to decline the relief of bail as sought for.
10. Whereas the learned Govt. Pleader for the State submitting that, if the accused is supposed to be released on bail, certainly she would have come in the way of the prosecution case and destroy the evidence. This apprehension expressed by the learned Govt. Pleader for the State could be curtailed by imposing suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for the 16 aforesaid reasons as well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion, that the petitioner- accused no.5 Smt. Shashikala is deserving for bail. Accordingly, I have to proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER Bail petition filed by the petitioner u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed subject to the following conditions.
1. The petitioner shall execute her personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a likesum surety to the satisfaction of the learned V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Dharwad, Sitting at Hubballi, as where the case in S.C. No. 70/2018 is pending ;
2. The petitioner shall not tamper or hamper the case of the prosecution witnesses;
3. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Dharwad District without prior permission from the competent Court of law; and
4. The petitioner shall not indulge in other criminal activities henceforth.
17If the petitioner violates ay of the above conditions, the bail order shall automatically stand ceased.
SD JUDGE bvv