Karnataka High Court
Ashok vs State Of Karnataka By on 7 July, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5115/2017
BETWEEN:
ASHOK
S/O NARAYANAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.641
2ND MAIN ROAD
9TH CROSS, BANGARAPPA NAGAR
RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA
BANGALORE - 10
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.LAKSHMIKANTH K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MALLESWARAM POLICE STATION
BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 05.06.2017 PASSED IN S.C.NO.640/2012 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
2
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ON THE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 227 OF CR.P.C. AND
DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER IN S.C.NO.640/2012.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has been arraigned as Accused No.9 in S.C.No.640/2012 and being tried for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 324, 201, 120B, 118 and 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC. Application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge of petitioner which came to be dismissed by trial court by order dated 05.06.2017 is called in question.
2. Heard Sri.Lakshmikanth, learned counsel appearing for petitioner/accused No.9 and learned HCGP appearing for the State. Perused the records.
3. Facts in brief that lead to filing of this petition are as under:
One Selvaraj lodged a complaint stating that on 1.10.2011 at about 11.30 a.m. he received a phone call from 3 one Sri.Muniyappa, who was said to be a follower of his brother, one Natraj stated to be a Corporator of the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, representing Ward No.94, Gandhinagar. Muniyappa is said to have urged the complainant to rush to Malleshwaram Market and when the complainant reached there, Muniyappa is stated to have taken the complainant to K.C.General hospital, wherein, in a parked ambulance, complainant's brother was lying with bandages on his face, head, stomach and other parts of his body and had apparently expired. On further enquiry, complainant claims to have learnt that his brother Nataraj was said to have been proceeding from his house to Malleshwaram Market on a two wheeler and it transpires that he was waylaid by a White coloured Maruthi Car which had followed him and had over taken his two wheeler and four unknown persons are said to have attacked him with long, machetes and a knife and caused serious injuries and said to have fled in the said Maruthi Car. It was stated that Nataraj was then admitted to Malleshwaram Hospital and later to Mallige Hospital where he was declared brought 4 dead. On receiving information, the complainant is said to have reported the matter to the jurisdictional police. After completion of investigation, police have filed charge sheet against 12 persons for the offences as already noted hereinabove.
4. Petitioner, who has been arraigned as Accused No.9 filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge from the case contending interalia that even from a bare reading of the charge sheet, it does not disclose that there was any overt act attributable to the petitioner/accused No.9 to implicate him in the present case and as such, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law and as such, he has sought for discharge.
5. Said application came to be resisted by the prosecution, which received the attention of the jurisdictional Sessions Court and after hearing the rival contentions and on examination of records, it has been noticed by trial court that case of the prosecution has been 5 that accused No.5 to 7 had initially approached the present petitioner/accused No.9 for eliminating deceased Nataraj, since he was known to be a supari killer. It is also urged that a part of the amount was given to Accused No.9 prior to the death of Nataraj and accused No.9 inspite of having the knowledge of criminal conspiracy with Accused No.5 to 7 has concealed said fact and thereby he has committed an offence punishable under Section 118 of IPC.
6. Prosecution relied upon the statements of CW96- Anand and CW-97-Manjunath, who in their statements recorded on 20.1.2012 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., have stated that present accused No.9 i.e, the petitioner and his friends were involved in the murder case of Kulla Natarj and they were acquitted in the case. They have also stated that accused No.9 was not having any occupation and own source of income and therefore, he was involved in criminal activities. They have also stated that Accused No.9 had taken CW-96 to Gandhinagar in August 2009 and at that time CW.96-Anand had also seen Accused No.5 to 7 were thanking to Accused No.9 and on that day Accused No.9 is 6 said to have carried cash of Rs.1,00,000/- which was said to have been received by him from Accused No.5 to 7. Said witness has also stated that accused No.9 disclosed to him that he had taken supari for Rs.25,00,000/- to kill Nataraj and had received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance. This fact has also been spoken to by CW-97 Manjunath. In this back ground, Sessions Court has rightly recorded that material on record would indicate that earlier accused No.5 to 7 had approached Accused No.9 for the purpose of giving supari to kill Nataraj and thereby accused No.9 had received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance from Accused No.5 to 7 to kill Nataraj and thereafter, on account of certain difference of opinion having arisen between them A-9 (petitioner) had not executed the work entrusted to him, namely to kill Nataraj. This material on record shows that accused No.9 had knowledge of criminal conspiracy and yet had concealed the said conspiracy till Nataraj was eliminated or killed. In that view of the matter, Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at a conclusion that sufficient materials are there against the petitioner/ accused No.9 to attract Section 7 118 of IPC and as such, charge leveled against accused No.9 cannot be held as without any basis.
7. The reasons assigned by the trial court is just and proper and this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not inclined to interfere with the order for the reasons afore stated. No grounds.
Petition is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that no opinion is expressed on merits of the case.
In view of the dismissal of the main petition, IA No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration. Consequently, it is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE PSG