Karnataka High Court
Mr.Rajesh @ Rajashekar @ Mallayya vs State Of Karnataka on 27 November, 2015
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 27th day of November 2015
Before
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
Criminal Petition No.101739/2015
Between:
Mr. Rajesh @ Rajashekar @ Mallayya,
S/o Pampanna, Smt. Beebijan Nadaf,
Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Islampur, Tq: Gangavathi,
Dt: Koppal. ...Petitioner
(By Sri Neelendra D.Gunde, Advocate)
And:
State of Karnataka,
By Gangavathi Town Police,
Represented by the
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building, Dharwad. ...Respondent
(By Smt. Veena Hegde, HCGP)
This petition is filed under 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to
enlarge him on bail who is accused No.1 in S.C. No.14/2015 on
the file of Dist. & Sessions Judge, Koppal being tried for the
offences punishable under Section 302, 201 and 379 of IPC.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court,
made the following:
:2:
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code registered in respondent police station Crime No.245/2014.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that one Mr.Chandpasa filed a complaint on 29.10.2014 at 9.30 a.m. alleging that on 29.10.2014 at 8.15 a.m. one Mr.Reddy, a driver came to him requesting him to come to his house for loading the iron which was before his house so that it can be transported and that he also informed the complainant that he saw a dead body without head. Thereafter, the complainant along with Reddy went to hamal colony near APMC, where he found the dead body without head. Immediately, the complainant informed the respondent police and the police came to spot and after searching, the head was found near shrubs. Accordingly a complaint was filed against an unknown person and the case was registered. :3: During the course of investigation, the present petitioner has been arrayed as accused in the case.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Counsel for the petitioner made the submission that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. He also made the submission that even looking to the circumstantial evidence said to have been collected by the Investigation officer during the investigation, the circumstances therein do not establish a prima facie case as against the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that looking to the photographs the head is completely severed from the body and he submitted that though the knife has been recovered at the spot, there are no blood stains found on it. It is also his submission that though the prosecution relied upon the statements of C.Ws.6, 7 and 8, which statements are said to have been recorded on 29.10.2014 itself, those :4: statements will not make out a case. Learned counsel submitted that looking to the inquest mahazar proceedings, nobody claimed the dead body and therefore, in that view of the matter, the statements of C.Ws.6, 7 and 8 have no relevance at all about the involvement of the petitioner in the case. Hence, he submitted that only on the basis of suspicion the present petitioner has been involved by the prosecution. Counsel also made the submission that now the investigation having been completed and the charge- sheet having been filed, there is no necessity for the petitioner to be continued in the custody and by imposing reasonable conditions, he may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader made the submission that even though there are no direct witnesses, the circumstantial witnesses and the material collected by the investigation officer clearly makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner. She made the submission that looking to the statements of the prosecution witnesses collected during the investigation, they prima facie establish that the present petitioner :5: and the deceased were classmates when they were studying and there was an illicit relationship between them. She also made the submission that the petitioner after coming to know that her husband was not residing with her, he used to go to the house of the deceased. She further made the submission that looking to the statements of C.Ws.6, 7 and 8, they clearly state about the present petitioner going to the house of the deceased and on the previous day, he went to the house, took the deceased on his motor cycle and thereafterwards she had not come back. Learned government pleader also made the submission that the deceased was having a neck chain and the same was sold by the present petitioner by going to a shop along with one of his relatives, whose statement was also recorded by the investigating officer during investigation of the case. She further made the submission that immediately after the incident, the present petitioner was contacted by the witnesses on his mobile and he told that she might have gone with another teacher and she will come back immediately. She also made the submission that call details were also collected by the investigating officer during the investigation. Hence, she :6: submitted that looking to all these materials on record, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the charge-sheet materials produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. So also, I have perused the photographs produced by the petitioner's counsel.
7. It is no doubt true that the material go to show that there are no direct witnesses to the alleged incident and the case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. Looking to the statements of the witnesses collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, more particularly, the statements of C.Ws.6, 7 and 8, they prima facie go to show that the present petitioner used to go to the house of the deceased and that on the previous day of the alleged incident, the petitioner went to the house of the deceased, took her on his motor cycle and thereafterwards, the deceased did not come back to her house. Regarding phone conversation between the witnesses and the present petitioner, the call details have been collected. Looking to :7: the statement of C.W.22-Smt. Prathibha, it goes to show that the present petitioner made an extra-judicial confession before her that it was he who committed the murder of the deceased. The materials also go to show that even the neck chain said to have been belonging to the deceased was recovered and that the statements of the persons from whom the chain was recovered and the person who went along with the petitioner to sell the neck chain have also been recorded during investigation by the investigating officer. Considering all these materials placed on record, they prima facie go to show the involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offences. Therefore, this is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms