Karnataka High Court
Rangappa N vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2021
Author: K. Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7202/2021
BETWEEN:
1. RANGAPPA N.,
S/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT DESHAVALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK.
2. CHANDRA @ RAMACHANDRA,
S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT DODDATHRAHALLI VILLAGE,
K.R.PETE TALUK.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.C.S.PREM KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
K.R.PETE RURAL POLICE STATION,
K.R.PETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
2
REPRESENTED BY STATE SPP.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.5057/2021
(CR.NO.315/2020) OF K.R.PET RURAL P.S., MANDYA
DISTRICT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201 R/W 34 OF
IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting bail in Crime No.315/2020 registered by K.R.Pet Rural Police for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3
3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant-Mahadeva, who is a machine operator working in Thrishul Power Plant found a dead body on 17.11.2020 without head and he lodged the complaint before the police. Subsequently, the case was registered against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. During the pendency of the investigation, the father of the deceased filed a missing complaint before the Pandavapura police station and the police showed the photographs of the deceased whose dead body was found in crime no.315/2020. The father of the deceased has identified the dead body as belonging to his daughter. Subsequently, on 08.03.2021, the police arrested the first petitioner, the husband of the deceased and thereafter the brother-in-law of the accused No.1. After investigation, they have been remanded to judicial custody .
4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated. The petitioner- accused No.1 himself filed a missing complaint in the year 2018. The deceased was in the nature of going out of the house without the knowledge of accused No.1 and she used to stay 3 to 4 days away from the house and come back. She was having some illegal intimacy with 2 to 3 persons and also with the brother of the accused No.1. There is no evidence against the accused. Out of 54 witnesses, there is no eye witness to the alleged incident. Therefore, it is contended that there is no material placed on record to show the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.
5
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the bail petition and contended that the petitioner-accused No.1 was coordinating with the deceased and suspected her fidelity by claiming she was having illegal intimacy with brother of the accused No.1 and also with other two persons. Inspite of the deceased being found missing from November 2020, he has not chosen to lodge any complaint and inform her father. Whenever, the deceased's father asked him about his daughter, he used to avoid and say she went out of the house. After filing of the missing complaint, the accused was arrested. Then he gave a confession statement for committing murder by cutting the head and he threw the dead body into Hemavathi River and thereby, he destroyed the evidence. There was recovery of weapons and there is circumstantial evidence placed on record. If the petitioners are granted bail, they may 6 abscond and tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the bail petition.
6. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP and on perusal of the records, it shows admittedly, the dead body was found in the water on 17.11.2020, when the complainant and his co-workers Anjaneyappa and Eregowda were working in the Power Plant. After registering the case against unknown persons, the dead body was found without head, hands and legs. The postmortem report reveals that it is a homicidal death of the deceased. During the investigation, a missing complaint was filed by the father of the deceased where it was alleged that the accused No.1 committed the murder of his wife with the help of accused No.2 and threw the dead body into the river. Though the voluntary statement of accused No.1 is not 7 admissible, but based upon the voluntary statement, that he dumped the dead body into the river and the weapon used by the accused for committing the murder by deheading the head was recovered, avoiding the information from the father of the deceased and stating that she is out of house and not filing a complaint about the missing of the wife for more than 6 months, these are all circumstances that go against the accused. Though there is no eye witness, out of 54 witnesses, the material placed on record shows the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence. If the petitioners are granted bail, there is every possibility of absconding from the case and tampering with the prosecution witnesses which is not ruled out. Though he has filed a missing complaint in the year 2018, but that itself is not a ground to say that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence. He has committed brutal murder of his own wife by de-heading 8 and cutting the hands and legs by part by part which reveals a cruel murder committed by the accused. Such being the case, the petitioners do not deserve to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KTY