Karnataka High Court
Yallappa Bhimappa Aadin vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 November, 2017
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102419 OF 2017
BETWEEN
YALLAPPA BHIMAPPA AADIN,
AGED 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDENT OF BETASUR,
TALUK: SOUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.G. MULAWADMATH, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SPP, DHARWAD,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH SOUNDATTI P.S.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING THAT THE PETITIONER BE
:2:
ENLARGED ON BAIL IN SOUNDATTI P.S. CRIME
NO.147/2017 FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION
302 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This bail petition has been filed by the petitioner
- accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in Soundatti P.S. Crime No.147/2017 alleging offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is alleged in the complaint that on 27.04.2017, when the complainant was on night patrol duty, the accused had come to the police station at about 4.30 a.m. in the wee hours. The accused had come there holding an axe in his hand and with blood-stained clothes. On enquiry with the accused, he revealed that he had committed two murders, in respect of :3: which he had given detailed statement to the police. It is stated in the complaint that the accused had a wife by name Mahadevi and two daughters namely Manjula and Rukmavva @ Rukmini. His elder daughter Manjula was given in marriage to one Shankareppa Kurbar but the said Shankareppa Kurbar was murdered due to a land dispute. Subsequently, his elder daughter namely Manjula and her son Abhishekh were staying with this accused in their house. His younger daughter was studying in Soundatti High School and that one Manju Bhimappa Padesur, aged about 20 years had developed a love affair with Rukmavva @ Rukmini. It is alleged that the aforesaid love affair between Rukmavva and Manju Padesur came to the knowledge of the accused about two months prior to the incident. On coming to know about their love affair, the accused had advised both of them to keep away from each other and particularly warned Manju Padesur not to contact his :4: daughter. In spite of his advise, the accused Manju Padesur continued to meet his daughter Rukmini. On 26.04.2017 at about 9.00 p.m. the accused, his wife and his daughters had their dinner and after dinner, the petitioner's wife, his elder daughter Manjula and her son had gone to their relative's house to sleep there. The petitioner had slept on a cot at the corridor, i.e., padasale. His daughter Rukmini also slept at the corridor. At about 1.30 a.m. on the intervening night of 26.04.2017 and 27.04.2017, the accused heard some sound from the backdoor of the house and thought that his daughter might have gone to the washroom. Later, he heard some whispering sound and hence he gave a look at the place where his daughter was sleeping. To his shock, he found that his daughter Rukmini and her paramour Manju Padesur were sleeping upon each other by putting the legs upon each other. On seeing his daughter in a compromising position with Manju Padesur, the :5: accused was terribly enraged and out of control of his senses and at once took an axe and assaulted on the neck of Manju. When Manju tried to run away so as to escape his assault, the accused caught hold of him firmly and assaulted him mercilessly with the axe four to five times on the vital part of his neck, till he died.
After killing Manju also his anger was not subsided and at once, he went in search of his daughter Rukmini. The accused then caught hold of his daughter who was hiding in the Pooja room and in the same fashion, assaulted her also mercilessly with the axe on her neck till she died. After killing both his daughter Rukmini and her paramour Manju Padesur, he then proceeded to the police station along with the axe and reported the incident to the police.
It transpires that the petitioner had locked his house and that nobody in his family knew about this incident and it had not been witnessed by anyone also. The accused had stated to the police that :6: Manju's vehicle was parked in the backyard of his house. He had stated that due to grave and sudden provocation on seeing his daughter sleeping with Manju, the petitioner lost his temper and mental balance and hence committed the act of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
On the basis of the statement given by the petitioner, the PSI, Soundatti Police Station had lodged a complaint on 27.04.2017 who have registered a criminal case in Crime No.147/2017 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
The accused who had seen his daughter Rukmini as well as Manju Padesur in a compromising position, took the deadly weapon of axe and mercilessly assaulted both of them in the vital part of their neck four to five times and committed their murder. Thereafter he had immediately gone to the police station and surrendered himself as well as the axe used and also narrated the entire incident before the :7: PSI who has registered a crime against the accused in Crime No.147/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, the investigation was taken up by the Investigating Officer wherein he has laid the charge-sheet against the accused before the committal court of JMFC, Soundatti.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument has contended that it is in a fit of anger that the accused had committed the murder of his daughter Rukmini and her paramour Manju by means of an axe by choosing the vital parts of their neck. Due to the sudden provocation on seeing his daughter and Manju in a compromising position on the intervening night of 26.04.2017 and 27.04.2017 at 1.30 a.m. the murder is alleged to have been committed by the accused but the accused did not have any intention to commit the gruesome :8: murder of his daughter Rumkini and also his paramour Manju Padesur. The accused is said to have given an intimation to the PSI by himself. He had been to the police station holding the deadly weapon of axe and surrendered himself to the police. This notion of the accused itself indicates that it is only in a fit of anger that the accused is alleged to have committed the murder of both of them but there was no intention to commit the murder of his daughter Rukmavva @ Rumkini and so also her paramour namely Manju Padesur. This aspect requires to be considered, apart from other grounds urged. Further, the accused is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest. It is only due to grave and sudden provocation that the accused had committed the murder and this aspect of the matter is required to be considered at this stage for considering the bail petition filed by the accused under the exceptional clause of Section 300 of IPC. :9:
It is further contended that even though the petitioner / accused being the father of the deceased Rukmini could have ran away from the scene of crime after committing the murder and also could have destroyed the evidence, being very truthful, he had straightaway gone to the police station and given information about committing the murder of his daughter and her paramour and surrendered himself to the police. That itself indicates his innocence and would prove that the act was not a pre-meditated one to commit their murder and it is only in a fit of rage that he had committed the murders.
5. In support of the grounds urged, the counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment in the case of SANJAY CHANDRA VS. CBI (2012 (1) SCC
40) relating to Sections 437 and 439 of the IPC for grant of conditional bail to balance competing considerations and relevant considerations in granting such conditional bail.
: 10 :
Similarly, a judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi is also placed reliance by the learned counsel in the case of SAHIL DAHIYA VS. STATE in Bail Application No.907/2015 dated 3.6.2015 relating to the bail application filed under Section 439 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein originally offence was registered in FIR 816/2014 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
6. The ratio of the reliance of these judgments are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand where the accused having committed the murder of his daughter Rukmini mercilessly by assaulting by means of an axe and similarly committed the murder of her paramour Manju Padesur. This accused is in custody since from the date of his arrest and also the accused himself has surrendered before the police by surrendering the axe which is alleged to have been used by him.
: 11 :
For all these grounds which has been emphatically addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.
7. The learned HCGP for the State during the course of arguments has contended by reiterating the averments made in the complaint in Cr.No.147/2017 which came to be registered for offences under Section 302 IPC. The accused is none other than the father of the deceased Rukmavva who committed the murder of his daughter and her paramour namely Manju Padesur mercilessly by assaulting on the vital parts of their neck by means of an axe four to five times till their death, on the intervening night of 26.04.2017 and 27.04.2017 at 1.30 a.m. on finding his daughter and Manju Padesur in a compromising position. He had at once reported the said incident to the police and surrendered himself before the police and also surrendered the axe which was said to be used to commit the murder. He had also given an : 12 : inculpatory statement for committing the heinous offences. All these things are stated in the charge- sheet laid by the Investigating Officer before the Committal Court of JMFC, Saundatti relating to the case in Crime No.147/2017.
8. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a contention that it is only because of grave and sudden provocation that this offence has been committed by the accused, that too of his own daughter Rukmini and her paramour Manju Padesur. But his innocence is required to be taken into consideration since he has himself surrendered before the PSI and given his statement of committing the murder and also had produced the axe alleged to be used by the accused at the time of committing the murder. The heinous offence has been committed in the house of the very accused itself.
9. Though all these contentions have been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but it does : 13 : not hold any water in effect in seeking the relief of bail.
10. As already stated in detail relating to the complicity of the crime which is narrated in detail of a complaint report wherein the case in Crime No.147/2017 for the offence under Section 302 IPC came to be registered by the Soundatti police and thereafter to proceed with the case against the accused for investigation. However, there is no dispute that the accused committed the murder of his own daughter Rukmini and her paramour Manju Padesur on the intervening night of 26.04.2017 and 27.04.2017 at about 1.30 a.m. as indicated in the FIR as well as in the complaint, the report which is based on the inculpatory statement given by the very accused himself. The material which were collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation in respect of which he has laid a charge- sheet against the accused in the committal court of : 14 : Soundatti reveals that the Investigating Officer has conducted the inquest over the dead bodies of Rukmini and Manju Padesur. The said inquest reveals infliction of injuries over the person of the deceased, that too on the vital parts of their neck. The fact that the accused had chosen the vital parts of the neck itself indicates that the accused had an intention to eliminate these two persons, namely Rukmini and Manju Padesur being her paramour. Moreover, out of anger, he had not stopped at just causing hurt to them using the axe. He had proceeded to assault the neck of both the deceased with the axe four to five time till they died.
The ghostly murder committed by the accused has been reflected in the charge-sheet laid by the Investigating Officer pending before the Committal JMFC in Crime No.147/2017.
However, on a cursory glance of the entire material which were secured by the Investigating : 15 : Officer where he has laid a charge-sheet against the accused, it is said that strong materials find place in the charge-sheet. Accused is facing trial in respect of heinous offence, that too gruesome murders committed by him and the same can be seen from the material itself.
11. Having regard to the heinous offence committed by the accused is concerned, it is relevant to state that if the accused is supposed to be released on bail, certainly there shall be an adverse impact on the society. Therefore, for the heinous offence committed by the accused of his own daughter Rukmini and her paramour Manju Padesur are concerned, I find that there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking the relief of bail. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the accused does not deserve to be released on bail. Accordingly, : 16 : the bail petition filed by the petitioner - accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
In view of the submission made by the learned counsel, it is seen that the charge-sheet which has been laid by the Investigating Officer before the Committal Court is pending for alleged offence under Section 302 IPC. However, the observations made in the present bail petition filed by the accused which has been rejected, should not prejudice the mind of the Trial Court where the accused is facing trial for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS