Karnataka High Court
Prashant Rama Lamani Bin Rama Lamani vs The State, Reptd. By Spp on 6 December, 2012
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDA
CRL.P.No.11432/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Prashant Rama Lamani
Bin Rama Lamani,
Age: 26 years, Occ: Service.
R/o Maruti Nagar,
Dandeli, Tq: Haliyal,
Dist: Karwar.
2. Mallikarjun Khemappa Chavan
Bin Khemappa Chavan,
Age: 39 years, Occ: Veternary Hospital,
Kelagera, Tq: Kushtagi,
R/o. H.No.36, Sector No.30,
Navanagar, Bagalkot. ... Petitioners
(By Sri.Chandrashekar Sirur, Adv. for
M/s Goulay Associates)
AND:
The State, Reptd. by SPP,
High Court Building Campus,
Dharwad. ... Respondent
(By Sri.V.M. Banakar, ASPP)
2
This criminal petition is filed under section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge petitioners on bail who are
accused Nos.3 & accused No.11 in S.C.No.60/2012
pending on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court-I, Uttar Kannada, Karwar, being tried for offences
punishable punishable under section 323, 353, 354, 504,
506, 302, 427, 143, 147, 148 r/w Section 149 of Indian
Penal Code.
This criminal petition coming on for orders this day,
the court, made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 11 in S.C.No.60/12 pending trial for offences punishable under Sections 323, 353, 354, 504, 506, 302, 427, 143, 147, 148 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. They have sought for bail.
2. I have heard Sri.Chandrashekhar Shirur, learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Addl. SPP for the State.
3
3. I have been taken through investigation records which present an unusual incident.
4. Deceased Madan Nayak, was the Assistant Conservator of Forests of Dandeli Forest. He was residing in the quarters provided by the Forest Department. Accused Nos.1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are from Bagalkot and accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 are from Dandeli town, accused No.8 is from Hubli.
5. On 6.5.12 petitioners and other accused had gone on a picnic to Dandeli Forest. The deceased had also taken his wife, son and daughters to a temple in Dandeli forest. When deceased and his family were returning from temple, they saw accused and other petitioners throwing remnants of food (non-veg.food) to crocodiles in Dandeli Wild Life sanctuary. The deceased as an Assistant Conservator of Forests, advised petitioners and other accused not to throw meat and bones to crocodiles in Wild Life Sanctuary. He also told them it would be 4 injurious to them. The petitioners and other accused got wild by advice of deceased and questioned the authority of deceased. The deceased introduced himself as the Assistant Conservator of Forests and also told petitioners and other accused that he is duty bound to protect the wild life sanctuary and the forest. The accused did not pay heed to his advice and they picked up quarrel with him.
6. Accused Nos.3 and 11 (petitioners herein) assaulted on the head of deceased with stones. The family members of deceased viz., his wife, daughters and son were also assaulted by accused. The deceased and injured persons reached Dandeli Police Station to lodge a complaint. In the meanwhile, the petitioners and accused persons came to police Station and threatened deceased and his family members that they would file a complaint against them under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, if the deceased were to lodge complaint against accused.
5
7. In the meanwhile, the deceased developed giddiness. He was given preliminary treatment in Government Hospital at Dandeli and thereafter he was shifted to S.D.M. Hospital at Dharwad, where he slipped into coma. The doctors made their best efforts to save deceased by conducting surgery. However, deceased could not be saved. In the postmortem report it is shown that deceased had suffered following injuries.
i. Abrasion with brown black scab present over the forehead measuring 5 x 4 cms.
ii. Abrasion present over left parieto-occipital area measuring 3 x 2 Cm with brown-black scab.
iii. Surgically sutured wound present over right side of head measuring 14 cm, starting 1 cm above right dragus on reflection of scalp. Contusion present over right fronto-temporo parieto-occipital area measuring 20x16 Cm. Craniotomy wound present over right temporo-
parietal area measuring 4 x 4.5 Sm. On opening cranial cavity membranes were surgically opened below the craniotomy wound. On reflection of membranes diffuse subdural and subarachroid haemorrhage present over both the cerebral hemispheres. 6 iv. Abraded contusion present over right side of chest 1 Cm. above right collar bone measuring 13x3 Cm.
v. Abrasion present over right palm measuring 3x1 Cm.
vi. Contusion of intercostal muscles between 8th to 10th intercostal space on left side of chest, measuring 6 x 4 cm.
All the above mentioned injuries were antemortem in nature.
It was opined that death was due to head injuries.
8. The petitioners and other accused had also assaulted family members of the deceased, i. e., wife, daughters and son of deceased. They had suffered simple injuries and they were treated in Government Hospital at Dandeli. Apart from this, injured witnesses and other forest officials of the department who were on duty had witnessed the incident of assault. The investigation records would reveal that there are eye witnesses to incident. These petitioners (accused Nos.3 and 11) assaulted on head of deceased with stones, which resulted in aforesaid injuries, ultimately caused his death.
7
9. The learned Counsel for petitioners has made following submissions:
i. The other accused, viz., accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 10 and 12 have been released on bail;
ii. There is no prima facie case against these petitioners for an offence under Section 302 IPC. iii. The death was not instantaneous. The deceased was suffering from heart ailment. He had undergone heart surgery. Even before he could be operated, he had breathed his last.
iv. There was inordinate delay in lodging first information report. There was inordinate delay in recording statements of eye witnesses. v. Even the entire case of prosecution is accepted at its face value, petitioners (accused 3 and 11) could be held guilty of offences punishable under Section 326 IPC or under Section 304(I) or (II) IPC. 8 Therefore, learned Counsel would submit that petitioners are entitled to bail.
10. The learned Addl. SPP appearing for the State, has made following submissions:
i. There are eye witnesses to the incident. ii. The postmortem examination report reveals that death was due to head injuries suffered by deceased. iii. The statement of eye witnesses would reveal that accused Nos.3 to 11 had assaulted on the head of deceased with stones.
iv. The deceased while discharging his duties as an Assistant Conservator of Forest had advised petitioners and other accused not to feed the crocodiles of Wild Life Sanctuary, petitioners without any provocation assaulted on the head of deceased with stones which ultimately caused his death. v. At this stage, it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion whether petitioners had any intention to 9 cause death of deceased; whether acts attributed to petitioners would attract offences punishable u/s 302 of IPC or under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. vi. The investigation records would reveal that acts of petitioners and accused were highhanded. They had caused death of a public servant who was discharging his official duties. Even after the incident, petitioners had threatened deceased and his family members that they would file a complaint against the deceased and his family members alleging offences under the provisions of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
vii. The petitioners and other accused had yielded influence on the jurisdictional Investigation Officer to delay the registration of case. Due to intervention of petitioners and the accused the Investigation Officer did not bother to immediately take deceased to hospital, in which event there were chances of his 10 survival. The conduct of petitioners before incident and after the incident demonstrates that petitioners are capable of yielding influence on Investigation Officer and tamper with witnesses if released on bail and petitioners have no regard for law.
11. The learned Counsel for parties have taken me through investigation records. Before adverting to investigation records, it is necessary to state certain facts which are not in dispute.
12. The deceased was an Assistant Conservator of Forest of Dandeli Forest. He was living in official quarters at Dandeli along with his family members. His son and daughters had visited their parents at Dandeli during the week end and they were also staying with them. On the date of incident the deceased had taken his family members to a temple near the place of incident. When they were returning from temple, deceased saw petitioners and other accused throwing remnants of non-vegetarian 11 food to crocodiles at Wild Life Sanctuary. The deceased advised accused not to throw remnants of food to crocodiles as it was injuries to their survival. The petitioners questioned the authority of deceased who introduced himself as the Assistant Conservator of Forest and also told accused that he is duty bound to preserve wild life in the sanctuary and the forest. Even thereafter, accused did not heed to advise of deceased and they questioned his authority to interfere with their activities.
13. The investigation records would reveal, that petitioners and deceased were not known to each other. The eye witnesses to the occurrence, in particular, family members of the Forest Guard did not know petitioners and other accused. After the incident, when deceased and his family members had gone to the Dandeli police station, petitioners and other accused also came there and threatened deceased and his family members that they would file an atrocity case against them alleging offences 12 punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Investigation Officer due to intervention of influential persons, at the instance of petitioners had neglected to provide immediate treatment to save the deceased. There was laxity on the part of the Investigation Officer due to influence wielded by petitioners and other accused.
14. The postmortem examination report would reveal that, deceased had suffered head injuries and cause of death was due to head injuries. The statements of eye- witnesses who had no ill-will or grudge against accused would disclose that accused Nos.3 and 11 (petitioners) hit on the head of deceased with stones and caused head injuries. The eye-witness had no motives to falsely implicate petitioners.
15. The deceased had no motive to pick up any quarrel with petitioners and other accused. He was discharging his official duties as the Assistant Conservator 13 of Forests and he was duty bound to protect the wild life sanctuary. When he advised petitioners and other accused not to throw remnants of food to the crocodiles living in Wild Life Sanctuary, petitioners questioned the authority of deceased and assaulted on his head with stones which ultimately resulted in his death.
16. In the circumstances, the contention of petitioners: that they have been falsely implicated; deceased died due to heart ailment and acts alleged to have been committed by petitioners do not prima facie attract an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, cannot be accepted. It is also seen from investigation records, soon after the incident the deceased and his family members had gone to Dandeli Police Station to lodge complaint. The jurisdictional police officer refused to register the complaint wherein it was alleged that deceased (a public servant) was assaulted and the only mistake committed by him was to advise petitioners and 14 other accused in discharge of his official duties. The Investigation Officer has shown complete laxity due to influence wielded by the petitioners and other accused.
17. The petitioner and other accused immediately after the incident had gone to police station to prevent registration of case against them. They had threatened the deceased and his family members that they would file a case against them alleging offences punishable under the provisions of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act. These facts prima facie give an indication that petitioners had meddled with investigation at initial stages. In the circumstances, it can safely be inferred if the petitioners are enlarged on bail they would interfere with trial by tampering prosecution witnesses.
18. At this stage, considering the background of incident and relative position of parties, the court cannot record a prima facie finding that the acts attributed to 15 petitioners 1 and 2 (accused 3 and 11) do not prima facie constitute an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, even if it is assumed that acts committed by the accused would attract offence punishable under section 304-I or II of Indian Penal Code, these offences are also punishable with imprisonment for life. The conduct of petitioners before the incident and after the incident would prima facie demonstrate that their acts were high handed and they had assaulted a public servant who was discharging his official duties.
19. It is true, detention of accused during pendency of trial should not be as a measure of punishment. The liberty of accused cannot be deprived except by procedure known to law. At the same time, this court has to consider interest of the Society and interest of the victim. The only mistake committed by the deceased was to advice petitioners and other accused not to throw remnants of food to crocodiles in the Wild Life Sanctuary 16 as it was injurious to their survival. The deceased had advised petitioners in discharge of his official duties as an Assistant Conservator of Forest. If the public servants are detered from discharging their official duties, morale of public servants would be let down. The public servants may gather an impression that if they were to discharge their duties sincerely for cause of public, their lives would be of peril. Therefore, court has to take into consideration the larger interests of the Society and relative position of accused and victims. The Court while considering application for bail has to ensure fair trial.
The learned Counsel for petitioners has pressed into service the ground of parity. As could be seen from investigation records fatal blows are attributed to petitioners. The overt acts attributed to other accused are not similar to overt acts attributed to petitioners.
20. On consideration of magnitude of offences alleged against petitioners and conduct of petitioners 17 before and after the incident, I hold that petitioners cannot be released on bail.
Therefore, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sub/