Karnataka High Court
R Vijayakumar vs State By Mahadevapura Police on 17 April, 2009
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala
Crl.P 2§To.9I0f2009
IN THE HIGH COURT' OF' KARNATAQCA 1 Q ., V'
DATED Tms ms 17711 :)A'a:f ()}:"f:':.4A .l?R4i'--!,. jy 3
BEFQRKE . , _
mm HOWBLE on.
CRIMINAL'f%L'FITIr§fi:_N§.9.i{)}l.2{)()qVV
BETWEEN:
Rfijayakumar,
S/oBRa1na3'.ah, ~ « V
Age: 35 years, 1: H
R/atNo.138,Caps"£ecV1','71.;._ , _
Near Ramakrm" "1iiiapp;'a's H13-;)'u5¢',*, "
Mahadevapuia, . ? ' '
Ba11gaIore~43." V _ Petitioner
(By Sci H M%Tmn5:aa%mya:ppa,%V%Aa~é., for petitioner)
fiNfl:,.. ; 2 ..... .. v
By Mahadt:vs!1pui?aVPai%,
_Rep. by'Stati:-: P1111316 Fzvsecutor,
Cour1r__of
z " Respondent
.1 HCGP, fir nespondent) T Criminal Petition is fixed under Section 439 of the Code of V"? Pmccdutvc, praying to release the petitioner on bail in S C No.776/2007 on the tile of FTC--HI, Bangalore, for the oflfenocs under Sactiens 323, 354, 364 and 376 of i P C. Crl.P.__No.910/2009 This Petition coming on for Orders this day, following: ._ = . "
omen T " 'T The petitioner/accused in s V:Vi§ o.776j'2oo'?o ;:n :,he file of Fast Track Court- I I I at Bangalore Section 439 of the Code of for the ofience under Sections 323, 354, Code.
2. fie iiefifioner submits that compaamt came to be:"'.3o<ig,ed gnesent petitioner. Thereafter, the pe1:itioner's_ brov1';her/'aee3.;sed._»' petit:ioner's sisters/accused Non-3.3 end anf1"'aeeused Nos.2 to 4 have been enlarged on bail. No.4 has been discharged before the Sessions V' ,3. ' Counsel for the petitioner submits that absolutely no sci11tzB.a' of material on record to show that the petitioner is i A n M V Tmegfiénsibk fir the ofienee under Section 375 of} P c. In so far 93 the alleged against the petitioner, major offence under Section 302 of I P C is coneerned, it is stated that there is no direct evidence L, CILP No.9}0l2009 connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence and such ciremnstances, it cannot be said that there is no out by the pmsecution. for the offence under See-iion 'A 1 since two years the petitioner is in jail. The "
including the deceased--motheif 'V wetrte-,_ , the accused] petitioner and they owe a of» / and therefore the complainant has the exesent petitioner.
It is also contended that the is not identaf1ed' and the " ' in jail for no fault of
3. Leamed Goxrerhinetzt tfleader submits that the deceased and £116. E*§1:1t fw;-.;e zeettting in the house on rent belonging' -- to the pzeeent compiainant was also Working in the shop of advantage of that the accused was forcing the " have sexual intercourse against her Will. Thereafter, and the complainant vacated the house and the complaint . be lodged. Fuxther, the petitioner] accused wanted to do the thing with the daughters of the deceased and the deceased objected to it Therefore the petitioner planned to eliminate her and CILP No.910!26'09 therefore the deceased was kidnapped in a Maruti Van and partly burnt the dead body and thrown. The dead by a passer-by and that is how the case came to the Station. He further submits that the Mc1oti1ee"._of identified by the complainant. It is fintheri'snbmitteriiA'thati to the incident, the accused comrnitted the theze is a circumstantial evidence con..uecfingi'the iVipt:~titinner/inccueed for the major oflence and therefore the petitioner' not. for bail.
4. In the:?fofi'eince' un£1er"Section 3'76 on P c is concerned, there is no "meid4_ical _eVi(ience: case of the prosecution hinges upon eircumstantiaix icvidence. Thcere is no impediment to convict the _a<:eusecfc,'~3'on_the basis «o.f_.c:Z3;'c:umstantiai evidence. In the instant case, the cii4c':31n:~2.t5a'32fiaVi"'evidence on reconi supports the case of prosecution V for Section 302 of I P (3. As the offence under Section 302 of 'heinous one, there is no good ground to release the on In the result, the Petition fails and the eame is hereby sdli 111.6199