Karnataka High Court
Parasappa S/O. Bhimappa Halawar vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 October, 2012
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11234/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Parasappa S/o. Bhimappa Halawar,
Age: 41 years, Occ.: Agriculture,
R/o. Nainegali Village,
Tq. & Dist. Bagalkot.
2. Hanumanth S/o. Ramappa Gani,
Age: 43 years, Occ.: Agriculture,
R/o. Nagaral,
Tq. & Dist. Bagalkot. ...Petitioners
[By Shri Bahubali A. Danawade, Advocate]
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
Bagalkot Rural Police Station,
Rep. by S.P.P. Circuit Bench,
Dharwad. ...Respondent
[By Shri V.M.Banakar, A.S.P.P.]
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to release them
on bail in Sessions Case No.53/2012 arising out of
Bagalkot Rural Police Station Crime No.33/2012
:2:
registered for the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 323 and 302 read with Section 149 of
the Indian Penal Code, pending on the file of the
Principal Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, in the interest of
justice.
This criminal petition coming on for orders, this
day, the Court made the following: -
ORDER
This petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is by accused Nos.4 and 5 in Sessions Case No.53/2012, on the file of Sessions Judge at Bagalkot. They and other accused persons have been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 302, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to the case of the prosecution, all accused persons forming themselves into an unlawful assembly at about 09:45 a.m. on 28.02.2012, by sharing a common object of committing murder of the deceased - Hanumant, had gathered near Katabar Katta in Nainegali Village and when the deceased Hanumant came there from his land, accused Nos.1 and 5 caught :3: hold of him and asked other accused persons to kill him without any visible injury. Accordingly, accused Nos.2 to 4 kicked on the testicles of Hanmant, as a result he fell down on the ground under severe pain and though the complainant - the brother of said Hanumant, on seeing the assault on his brother, requested the accused persons to spare the deceased, the accused assaulted the deceased and went away from the place. Immediately injured was taken to the Hospital, but he was found dead. After this incident, Siddappa Chittaragi lodged a report, based on which the case came to be registered and investigation was taken up.
3. During investigation, petitioners and the accused persons were apprehended and later subjected to judicial custody. The Doctor who conducted postmortem examination, noticed no external injuries on the body. Nevertheless, he found swelling of both the scrotum, and testes with scrotum were sent for Histopathological examination. The Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, BLDEA's Shri :4: B.M.Patil Medical College, Bijapur, submitted the opinion on Histopathological examination to the effect that no evidence of injury to scrotal tissue and testicle sent. On the basis of this opinion, the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination furnished his opinion that the cause of death remains undetected. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be laid. It appears accused Nos.6 to 18 have been enlarged on bail. The prayer made by these petitioners for bail before the learned Sessions Judge came to be rejected. Therefore, they are before this Court.
4. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State. I have perused the records made available.
5. At this stage, the materials on record prima facie indicates that the deceased Hanumant died on 28.02.2012 and according to the allegations made in the complaint lodged by the brother of deceased who is purported to be an eyewitness, accused Nos.1 and 5 caught hold of the deceased while accused Nos.2 to 4 :5: kicked on the testicles of the deceased, as a result, the deceased was under severe pain and ultimately died. No doubt, the Histopathological examination of the scrotum with testicles revealed no injury to the scrotum and testicles. Nevertheless, the observation made by the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination revealed swelling of both the scrotums. The complainant who is stated to be an eyewitness has made categorical statements as to the overt acts of these two petitioners along with other three accused. Therefore, at this stage, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the death of the deceased was homicidal and these two petitioners along with three others, as members of unlawful assembly, in furtherance of common object have committed the murder of the deceased. Therefore, at this stage, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of the offences punishable with death or life imprisonment.
6. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offences as well as the punishment prescribed for :6: the same, it is not just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Therefore, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rsh