Karnataka High Court
Devappa @ Devanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 November, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201526/2021
BETWEEN:
DEVAPPA @ DEVANNA
S/O MAREPPA SHEKASINDI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SHIVANUR, TQ. WADAGERA
DIST. YADGIR
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH WADAGERA P.S.,
(CRIME NO.46/2021)
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI-585107
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO RELEASE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.46/2021 OF WADIGERE
POLICE STATION AND REGISTERED AS S.C.NO.57/2021 FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 203
R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE SESSIONS
JUDGE COURT YADGIR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.46/2021 of Wadigere Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 203 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is having illicit relationship with accused No.2 and the said fact came to the knowledge of the deceased-Bheemanna i.e., husband of accused No.2, and apprehending that the deceased will do away with her life and accused No.1, both of them joined hands in eliminating the deceased and committed murder by strangulating.
3
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, at the first instance, UDR case was registered and only based on the statement of CW.8 which was made before the complainant on 22.04.2021, complaint is filed on 23.04.2021. Based on the complaint, case is registered in Crime No.46/2021 of Wadigere Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The learned counsel would submit that the statement of CW.8 cannot be believed and if he had really witnessed the incident, he could have informed the same immediately, but there is delay of six days in bringing the same to the notice of the complainant. Once the statement of CW.8 cannot be believed, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. The learned counsel also submits that the police have investigated the matter and filed chargesheet and hence, there is no need of 4 custodial trial. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that there is motive for taking life of the deceased. The petitioner was having illicit relationship with accused No.2. Apart from that, earlier accused No.2 pretended that her husband i.e., deceased-Bheemanna passed away due to heart attack and she gave complaint. He would also submit that after few days, CW.8 went and informed CW.1 about he witnessing the incident of committing murder of the deceased by pressing neck of the deceased. The PM report also discloses that the deceased had sustained injuries over the neck and cause of death is due to strangulation. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise power under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
5
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State, it is not in dispute that the death has occurred in the house of accused No.2. It is the allegation that petitioner and accused No.2 were having illicit relationship and hence, there is motive in committing the murder of the deceased. The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of CW.8 and according to the prosecution, he witnessed the incident, but he informed the complainant about witnessing of the incident of taking away the life of the deceased, after eight days of the incident. After perusing the postmortem report, it is clear that death is due to strangulation and case of the prosecution is also that it is a case of strangulation. When strong motive is attributed against the petitioner in joining his hands with accused No.2 in committing the murder, mere filing of chargesheet is not a ground to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and apart 6 from that, CW.8 statement is clear that he witnessed the act of murder and delay has to be the subject matter of ascertaining the truth in the trial. Hence, I do not find any ground to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
7. In view of the observations made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*