Ibrahim S/O Hussain Sab Muslim vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 April, 2015

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ibrahim S/O Hussain Sab Muslim vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 April, 2015

Bench: K.N.Phaneendra

                                 1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    KALABURAGI BENCH
        DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF APRIL 2015
                             BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
           CRIMINAL PETITION No. 200431/2015

Between:

Ibrahim S/o Hussain sab
Age: 30 years, Occ: Tiles Fixing Mason
R/o Eklaspur village now residing at
Atnoor village Tq: Manvi
Dist: Raichur.

                                                    ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Shivanand V.Pattanshetti Advocate)

And:

State of Karnataka through
Represented by Addl. State Public Prosecutor
Kalaburgi Bench
(Through Sirwar P.S. Dist: Raichur.
                                                  ... Respondent
(By Sri. Prakash Yeli Addl. S.P.P.)


   This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by
the Advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to grant regular bail to the petitioner in C.C.
No.90/2015 (Sirwar P.S. Crime No.246/2014) pending on the file
                                   2




of J.M.F.C., Court Manvi, which is registered for the offences
punishable U/Sec. 302 & 201 of Indian Penal Code.


       This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:
                             ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

2. A person by name Shamshuddin of Atnoor village who is none other than brother of the deceased Alisab has lodged first information report that on 20-11-2014, he received information from one Gurupadappa that his brother's dead body was found near Ganigera halla. Immediately he went there and found his another brother Akbar Ali on the spot, he found his brother's dead body near the said Ganigera halla, having sustained severe injuries on his forehead and also right chin, etc. It is also stated in the complaint that the petitioner Ibrahim with an intention to kill his brother took his brother alongwith him on a motor cycle and committed his murder by assaulting him. On the basis of such 3 information, the police have registered a case in Crime No.246/2014 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 302 & 201 of Indian Penal Code and after due investigation submitted the charge sheet.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drawn my attention that the so called eyewitnesses in this case by name Akbar Ali, Mishi Basha, Chandpasha and Gurupadappa, all of them have stated that they had been to Ganigera halla on that particular day for the purpose of fishing, but the said stream (halla) or pond was a dried up pond, therefore, there was no occasion for them to go there, therefore all the eyewitnesses are created subsequently by the police. He has contended that the eyewitnesses who were present at the spot when the complainant visited the spot, inspite of that he has not narrated about the information given by the eyewitnesses as to how the incident happened. In my opinion the above said aspects have to be thrashed out during the course of full dressed trial as to why these witnesses inspite of Ganigera halla, being a dried pond went there 4 for fishing and also F.I.R. in my opinion at this stage cannot be understood as an encyclopedia, to hold that it should contain all the details, but though it is not stated that the eyewitnesses have not disclosed all those things, but nevertheless what the eyewitnesses have stated in their statements is not systematically stated in the F.I.R., no such information is available. Therefore at this stage, merely because some discrepancy is there in the first information report , the version of the eyewitnesses cannot be discarded wherein the eyewitnesses have categorically implicated the accused that petitioner/accused on that particular day sat on the deceased and assaulted him with an axe and thereafter ran away from the spot inspite of deceased pleading for mercy not to assault him. When such being the case, when the eyewitnesses versions are there, there presence at the spot or any other contradictions and omissions, can't be evaluated at this stage. It is the burden on the petitioner/accused to explain as to how the death occurred.

Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has placed prima-facie materials in order to implicate this petitioner at this stage. Hence the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE MWS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court