Karnataka High Court
Laadappa And Anr vs The State on 10 December, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201596/2021
BETWEEN:
1. LAADAPPA
S/O MAHADEVAPPA UDAYAKAR
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O BADADAL CHINCHOLI
NOW RESIDING AT GHATTARGA
TQ. AFZALPUR
DIST. KALABURAGI-585265
2. BASU @ BASAWARAJ
S/O SHARANAPPA SINGE
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O GHATTARGA, TQ. AFZALPUR
DIST. KALABURAGI-585265
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI AYYANAGOUDA S. PATIL,
SRI S.B. SANGOLAGI &
SRI M.S. ASTAGI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE STATE THROUGH NIMBARGA P.S.,
TQ. ALAND, DIST. KALABURAGI
(REPRESENTING BY LEARNED
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT KALABURAGI-585105)
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO RELEASE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.17/2021 OF NIMBARGA
POLICE STATION, TQ. ALAND, DIST. KALABURAGI, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR., DN.,) AND JMFC AT
ALAND, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302,
109, 120(B)(1) R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., by accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking regular bail in Crime No.17/2021 of Nimbarga Police Station, Aland Taluk, Kalaburagi District, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 109, 120(B)(1) r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3
3. Factual matrix of the case is that accused No.1 was having illicit relationship with accused No.4 who is the wife of the deceased-Ravi and when the deceased objected to the same, all the accused conspired with each other to eliminate the deceased. In furtherance of conspiracy, accused No.1 called the deceased and also secured accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the petitioners herein. All of them took the deceased to Dhaba wherein they had food. Thereafter, they took him to lonely place and committed the murder by strangulation. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of CWs.22 and 23 i.e., owner of the dhaba and also waiter who made statement before the Investigating Officer that they have last seen these persons and having collected the material, filed charge sheet against the petitioners and accused Nos.1 and 4.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that only based on the 4 voluntary statement, these two accused persons are implicated making allegation that both these petitioners held hands and legs of the deceased while accused No.1 strangulating the deceased. The prosecution is relying upon the statement of planted witnesses and except last seen theory, no other material is before the Court. Investigation has already been completed. The petitioners are in custody from March, 2021 and there is no need of custodial trial. Hence, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that accused No.4 is the wife of the deceased. There are call details between accused Nos.1 and 4 to show that they were in illicit relationship. These two petitioners who are the friends of accused No.1 joined hands with accused No.1 in eliminating the deceased. CWs.22 and 23 owner of dhaba and waiter 5 have categorically stated that these two petitioners and accused No.1 took the deceased at 9.00 p.m., in the motorcycle. Thereafter, the body was found and though UDR was registered, mother of the deceased suspected the role of accused Nos.1 and 4 and filed complaint. Based on that complaint, case has been registered. The Investigating Officer investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. The petitioners have also facilitated accused No.1 in committing the murder of the deceased by strangulating. The petitioners held hands and legs of the deceased while committing the murder. Hence, there are sound circumstances against the petitioners in taking the life of the deceased, though case rests upon the circumstantial evidence.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and on perusal of the material on record, the 6 prosecution has collected call details between accused Nos.1 and 4 which prima facie discloses that there was relationship between accused Nos.1 and 4 and before eliminating the deceased both of them were in touch with each other. It is also the case of the prosecution that these two petitioners conspired with accused No.1 in taking away the life of the deceased. The witnesses CWs.22 and 23 have seen the deceased along with petitioners and accused No.1 and all of them visited dhaba and all of them left dhaba together in the motorcycle. When such materials are available on record and body was found on the next day, the very contention that the statement of the witnesses was recorded belatedly after thirty days cannot be a ground to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. The case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. The deceased was taken at around 9.00 p.m., by the petitioners and accused No.1 and murder was committed at around 11.00 p.m., and there is proximity 7 of time since death and last seen theory. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*