Karnataka High Court
Sri Nagappa S/O Rudrappa Rainapur vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2025
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544
CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100053 OF 2025
[439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)]
BETWEEN:
SRI NAGAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA RAINAPUR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BENKATTI VILLAGE, TAL. YARAGATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591129.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH PSI, MURGOD POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally
signed by
DHARWAD PIN-580011.
MANJANNA
MANJANNA E
E Date:
... RESPONDENT
2025.02.01
10:21:01
+0530
(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF
CR.P.C. (U/SEC. 483 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ENLARGE
HIM ON BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DEEMED
FIT IN MURGOD P.S. CRIME NO. 213/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/SEC. 189(2), 191(2), 103(1), 49, 61(2)(A), 238(A), 351(3)
AND 190 OF BNS-2023 IN SO FAR AS PRESENT PETITIONER
ACCUSED NO.1 IS CONCERNED PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAUNDATTI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544
CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS' for short) is seeking for regular bail in Crime no.213/2024 of Murgod Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 191 (2), 103 (1), 49, 61 (2) (A), 238 (A), 351 (3) and 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS', for short), by accused no.1 (petitioner).
2. Sri Santosh B. Malagoudar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted on 09.08.2024, Kadappa Shirsangi (victim) was found dead unnaturally, in his land situated within limits of Srirangapur-Benagatti village. Initially UDR.no.39/2024 was registered by Murgod Police Station, at instance of victim's wife Smt.Sridevi. But on 12.08.2024, a suo-motu complaint was registered by Police Sub-Inspector stating, after receipt of provisional Post Mortem Report ('PMR'), when he enquired about cause of death of victim, his informers had told him that as per instructions of by petitioner, who was in illicit relationship with victim's wife, Lakshman Hooli (accused no.2), Satish Arebenchi (accused no.3), Basappa Naikar (accused -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025 no.4), Vittal Aladakatti (accused no.5) and Shivappa Hooli (accused no.6) had with common intention of murdering victim, met at between 8:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on 09.08.2024 and murdered victim in his land and thereafter tried to destroy evidence. Complaint was registered as Crime no.213/2024.
3. It was submitted, though there was no direct evidence to implicate petitioner, he was arrested on 16.08.2024 for his involvement in murder of victim. It was submitted, insofar as petitioner, prosecution case, at best was circumstantial and based on allegation that he was having affair with victim's wife, but without any material linking him to murder. It was submitted, apart from using allegation as motive, prosecution relied on statements of accused no.2 to 4 to implicate petitioner to murder. At outset, it was submitted, statement recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC' for short) would not carry any evidentiary value.
4. That apart, there were no eye-witnesses. In fact, there was no material showing petitioner's presence at incident spot or about his role in it as alleged. It was submitted, though -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025 in charge-sheet it was alleged, petitioner had given supari to accused no.4 to murder victim for Rs.2,50,000/-, but there was no material to support same. Though some material was collected i.e. statements of CWs-26 to 28 was in support of 'last seen' theory against accused no.2, and would not implicate petitioner. Likewise, even CWs-21 and CW-30, supplier and owner of Taj Deluxe Hotel stated about seeing accused no.2 having dinner with victim, some time prior to incident and CW- 20 - Mallikarjun Savalagi, who had dinner at Taj Deluxe Hotel along with accused no.2 and victim, was that accused no.2 told him about intention to murder victim. Thus, arraignment of petitioner was only on ground of alleged motive.
5. It was submitted, petitioner had filed bail petition along with accused no.5, who was granted bail, and refusal in case of petitioner was without consideration. It was submitted, petitioner was 40 year old agriculturist and law abiding citizen having movable and immovable properties. He had no criminal antecedents. And as investigation was completed and charge- sheet filed on 16.10.2024, he would not be required for custodial interrogation. On above grounds sought for allowing petition on any conditions.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025
6. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent - State opposed petition. It was submitted, though initially UDR was registered in relation to death of victim, during investigation, statements recorded indicated accused no.2 to 6 had joined together and murdered victim as contracted by petitioner with accused no.4. Thus it was a case of supari killing and nature of offence alleged against petitioner were grave and serious. It was submitted, statements of CW-1
- complainant, CWs-1 to 17 - pancha witnesses and CWs-18 to 46 sufficiently established commission of offences by accused. Insofar as petitioner, in their statements, accused no.2 to 4 had clearly stated about petitioner contracting with accused no.4 to murder victim, for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and thereafter accused no.4 conspiring with other accused to murder. It was further submitted, offence alleged was punishable with death or imprisonment for life and as all vital prosecution witnesses were from same village/locality, there was every likelihood of petitioner threatening or influencing them. On above grounds sought for rejection of petition.
7. Heard learned counsel and perused available material on record.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025
8. From above, only point that would arise for consideration is:
"Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail on conditions?"
9. From above it is seen, petition for grant of regular bail in Crime no.213/2024 of Murgod Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 191 (2), 103 (1), 49, 61 (2) (A), 238 (A), 351 (3) and 190 of BNS.
10. At outset, it is seen, offence under Section 189 (2) i.e. forming unlawful assembly, under Section 191 (2) for rioting, under Section 351 (3) i.e. threat to cause death and under Section 238 (A) causing disappearance of evidence are bailable. And since offences of abetment under Section 49 and criminal conspiracy to commit offence under Section 61 (2) (A) would bear same punishment as offence committed, they would attract same punishment as that of principle which under Section 103 (1) is murder punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
11. Indeed, offence of murder would be heinous. But, it is contended by petitioner that there is absolutely no material -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025 to connect him to said offence, which is disputed by prosecution. As stated above, prosecution case is in two parts, first involving motive and instigation which is against petitioner and accused no.4, and second part of planning and commission of murder of victim which is against accused no.2 to 6.
12. Prosecution case as per contents of column 17 in charge-sheet is that, about 7 to 8 years earlier, victim's wife was elected Taluk Panchayath Member. At that time, she began having affair with petitioner, which had angered victim against petitioner. And about 5-6 months prior to incident, petitioner along with accused no.4 and 5 who were his employees went to house of victim after consuming alcohol and threatened to kill him. Thereafter at 8:00 p.m., on 29.07.2024, petitioner met accused no.4 and 5 in field, wherein petitioner gave supari to accused no.4 to kill victim for Rs.2,50,000/-, and in pursuance of same, accused no.4 met accused no.2 in Weigh Bridge room at 1:00 p.m. on 08.08.2024 and conspired to kill victim. In pursuance of same, at 2:00 p.m. on 09.08.2024, accused no.2 went to Yaragatti on his motorcycle, met victim along with CW-
20. Those three persons went to Taj Deluxe Hotel belonging to CW-30, consumed liquor and had food. Accused no.2, informed -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025 CW-20 about intention to kill victim, cautioned him against revealing it to anyone and sent him away. Thereafter he took victim to his land and got victim to sit leaning onto coconut tree, made him consume liquor and be intoxicated. Thereafter as planned, accused no.2 to 6 joined together and killed victim. Accused no.3 rolled white T-Shirt and wrapped it on neck of victim and pinned him tight against tree, while accused no.2 caught hold of victim's arms, accused no.6 caught hold of victim's legs. Thereafter accused no.3 came in front and strangulated victim to death. Thereafter they disposed of T-shirt used to commit crime in canal with intention to destroy evidence of murder.
13. Though, prosecution claims to have recorded statements of various persons, none of them appear to be eye- witnesses. CW-1 is suo-motu complainant. CWs-2 to 17 are pancha witnesses. CW-18 is wife of victim. Though, CWs-19 to 46 are other witnesses, whose statements are recorded, material among them would be CWs-20, 30 and 21. Wherein they stated that CW-20 had dinner with accused no.2 and victim at hotel belonging to CW-30, where CW-21 was server and heard their conversation. However, their statements would -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025 at best be useful for substantiating last seen theory qua victim and would not directly implicate petitioner. Likewise in case of CWs-26 to 28 who claimed to have seen victim riding with accused no.2. Prima facie at this stage, there appears to be no material or statement that would link petitioner with accused no.2 to 6 or to their alleged conspiracy to murder victim, except confessional statements of accused no.2 to 6.
14. Insofar as reliability of confessional statements of co-accused, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratnu Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1667, held follows:
"9. As regards the evidentiary value of an extra- judicial confession, a bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court in the case of Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan1, in Paragraph 11, this Court held thus:
"11. It is true that an extra-judicial confession is used against its maker but as a matter of caution, advisable for the court to look for a corroboration with the other evidence on record. In Gopal Sah v. State of Bihar [Gopal Sah v. State of Bihar, (2008) 17 SCC 128 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 466], this Court while dealing with extra-judicial
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544
CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025
confession held that extra-judicial
confession is, on the face of it, a weak
evidence and the Court is reluctant, in the absence of a chain of cogent circumstances, to rely on it, for the purpose of recording a conviction. In the instant case, it may be noticed that there are no additional cogent circumstances on record to rely on it. At the same time, Shambhu Singh (PW 3), while recording his statement under Section 164 CrPC, has not made such statement of extra-judicial confession (Ext.
D-5) made by accused Babu Lal. In addition, no other circumstances are on record to support it."
(emphasis added) In paragraph 16 of the decision of this Court in the case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal2, this Court held thus:
"16. It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been held that where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. It has further been held that it is well- settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544
CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025
independent reliable corroboration
before placing any reliance upon such
extra-judicial confession. It has been held that there is no doubt that conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence."
(emphasis added)
15. In view of ratio that confessional statements of accused before police would require prosecution to establish that it was voluntary before establishing that contents of such confession were true and supported by other material and which inspires confidence, whether prosecution would be able to establish its charges against petitioner, would essentially be matter for trial.
16. Under above circumstances, and taking note of ratio in case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, that purpose of bail is only to secure appearance of accused at trial and cannot be either punitive nor preventative and deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment and further that punishment begins only after conviction, point for consideration is answered in affirmative, subject however to following conditions to alleviate prosecution concerns.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1544 CRL.P No. 100053 of 2025
17. Hence following:
ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused no.1 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime no.213/2024 of Murgod Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 191 (2), 103 (1), 49, 61 (2) (A), 238 (A), 351 (3) and 190 of BNS, subject to following conditions:
a) He shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum to satisfaction of Court.
b) He shall not threaten, tamper or with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly.
c) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities.
d) He shall be regular in attending Court proceedings.
e) It is clarified that views expressed are prima facie for purposes of this order and shall not influence final outcome after trial.
SD/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 19