Karnataka High Court
Sri Somalingappa S/O Hanumanthappa ... vs State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2023
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100001/2023 C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100035/2023
IN CRL.A NO 100001 OF 2023
BETWEEN
1. SRI KHAJASAB S/O KHASIMSAB KATARKI,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULIHYDER, TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
DIST. KOPPAL
2. SRI BARI IMAMSAB @ ASIF
S/O BASHASAB KANAKAGIRI,
AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULIHYDER, TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
3. SRI MEHABOOBSAB S/O KHASIMSAB KIDADAR,
AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. PVT. EMPLOYEE,
R/O. HULIHYDER, TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
SUJATA
SUBHASH
PAMMAR 4. SRI RAJ MOHAMMAD
S/O BASHASAB KANAKAGIRI @ ELIGAR,
Digitally signed by
SUJATA SUBHASH
PAMMAR AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
R/O. HULIHYDER, TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
BENCH,
DHARWAD.
Date: 2023.02.23
12:13:15 +0530
DIST. KOPPAL.
5. SRI SHAMIDSAB S/O BASHASAB KANAKAGIRI,
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULIHYDER, TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
2
DIST. KOPPAL.
6. SRI HANUMESH S/O SHANKRAPPA GADDI,
AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULIHYDER, TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
7. SRI SAMEER @ SAMEERSAB S/O USMANSAB ELIGARM
AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULIHYDER, TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
8. SRI RASOOLSAB @ RASOOL
S/O SHAMIDSAB HOLAGUNDI
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULIHYDER, TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
9. SRI BARI IMAM S/O SHAMIDSAB HOLAGUNDI,
AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULIHYDER, TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
10. SRI SADIQ S/O SHAMIDSAB HOLAGUNDI,
AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULIHYDER, TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
11. SRI MURTUJA S/O IMAMSAB HOLAGUNDI,
AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULIHYDER, TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
12. SRI HUSSAINSAB @ HUSSAIN
S/O IMAMSAB HOLAGUNDI,
AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULIHYDER, TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
13. SRI MAHEBOOB @ MAIBUSAB
S/O HUSSAINSAB DAROJI,
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULIHYDER, TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
3
DIST. KOPPAL.
14. SRI IMAMSAB ALIAS BUDDA S/O KASISAB KATARKI,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULIHYDER, TQ. KANAKAGIRI.
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SRI NEELENDRA.D.GUNDE, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KANAKAGIRI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD-580001
2. SMT. HAMPAMMA W/O YANKAPPA TALWAR,
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. HULIHYDER, TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
DIST. KOPPAL-583283
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R-1
R-2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A(2) OF
SC/ST AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT) SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL IN SC(AC)
NO.76/2022 DATED 16.12.2022, OM CRIME NO.85/2022 OF
KANAKAGIRI P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 143,
147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 448, 452, 427, 302, 212, 504, 506,
109, R/W 149 OF IPC AND U/SEC 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(2)(w),3(2)(v) AND 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST AMENDMENT ACT-
2015 AND GRANT BAIL.
IN CRL.A NO 100035 OF 2023
BETWEEN
1. SRI SOMALINGAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA GADDI,
AGE 38YRS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
4
R/O NEAR NAGESHWAR TEMPLE,
HULIHYDAR VILLAGE, TQ KANAKAGIRI,
DIST KOPPAL 583283.
2. SRI ADAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA GADDI,
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NEAR NAGESHWAR TEMPLE,
HULIHYDER VILLAGE, TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
DIST. KOPPAL-583283.
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SRI NEELENDRA.D.GUNDE, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KANAKAGIRI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD-580001
2. SMT. HAMPAMMA W/O YANKAPPA TALWAR,
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. HULIHYDER, TQ. KANAKAGIRI,
DIST. KOPPAL-583283
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R-1
R-2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A(2) OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-KOPPAL IN SC(AC) NO.
76/2022 DATED 22.12.2022, IN CRIME NO. 85/2022 OF
KANAKAGIRI P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 143,
147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 448, 452, 427, 302, 212, 504, 506,
109, R/W 149 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(w),
3(2)(v) AND 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST AMENDMENT ACT-2014 AND
GRANT BAIL.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 10.02.2023 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are filed under Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST [POA] Act', for short) challenging the order passed by the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Koppal in SC (AC) No.76/2022 dated 16.12.2022 and 22.12.2022 whereby the learned Special Judge has rejected the bail petitions filed by the appellants herein for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 448, 452, 427, 302, 212, 504, 506, 109 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC', for short) and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(w), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST [POA] Act.
6
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to with the original rankings occupied by them before the Trial Court.
3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that on 11.08.2022 between 9.00 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. in Koppal, the complainant was in her house along with her husband Yankappa and relatives viz., Hanumamma Talavar, Iramma Talavar and Parashuram Talavar. It is the contention of the prosecution that the complainant is belonging to Naik community and there was a dispute between Naik and other communities in respect of installation of the statue of Valmiki which was removed about two years earlier. It is further alleged that villagers have also insisted for installation of Buddha statue along with statue of Dr. Ambedkar and certain meetings were also held in the village. According to the prosecution, on 11.08.2022 at 8.30 a.m. in Hulihyder bus stand, 7 accused No.44 was assaulted by the deceased Yankappa and his children. Thereafter CW-13 to CW- 37 and CW-42 to CW-54 went near Imamsab Darga questioning the accused persons in respect of assault made on CW-50, Huchappa. At that time, the accused persons formed unlawful assembly holding deadly weapons like stones, clubs, iron rod and they pelted stones on the houses of Naik community. It is alleged that they have also trespassed into the house of the complainant and assaulted them and also abused them with reference to their caste. It is alleged that when the deceased Yankaappa was trying to escape, the accused caught hold of him near Imamsab Darga road and accused Nos.1, 3 and 27 assaulted him with stones, clubs with an intention to cause his death. As a result, he suffered grievous injuries and succumbed. It is also alleged that accused have also pelted stones on the houses of other Naik community families and 8 damaged the vehicles by causing loss to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and in this regard a complaint came to be lodged. Initially the complaint was lodged against 30 accused persons but after investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against 59 accused persons. The appellants in Crl.A.No.100001/2023 are accused Nos.4, 10 to 12, 14 to 16, 18, 19, 22 to 24, 28 and 30 while in Crl.A.No.100035/2023 accused Nos.5 and 6 are seeking bail. They have approached the learned Special Judge and the learned Special Judge has rejected their bail petitions. Hence, they are before this Court by way of these appeals.
4. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for appellants/accused and learned H.C.G.P. for the respondent No.1/State. Respondent No.2 though served, is unrepresented. Perused the records.
9
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/accused would contend that though the FIR was lodged against 30 persons but charge sheet is laid down against 59 persons based on video footages and the allegation under Section 302 of IPC were only directed against accused Nos.1, 3 and 27. But other accused were prosecuted for various other offences triable by the learned Magistrate and as regards caste abuse, only omnibus allegations have been made without there being any specific material evidence. He would also contend that statement of witnesses would also disclose that they are directed against accused Nos.1, 3 and 27 and merely because all the persons present during mob, they have been falsely implicated. They would also undertake to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court and prayed for admitting them on bail.
10
6. Per contra, learned H.C.G.P. would contend that CW-10 to CW-27 are eyewitnesses and there are case and counter cases as two communities in the village fought by pelting stones against each other and looking to the facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case wherein the discretion can be exercised since there is every possibility of tampering the prosecution witnesses and there is likelihood of breach of peace in the village. Hence, he would seek for rejection of the appeals.
7. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that there is serious dispute between Naik community and other communities in the village. Further, it is also evident that the dispute started with respect to installation of Valmiki statue which was taken away about two years earlier and there was a decision to install said statue again. However, the other community people were insisting 11 for installation of Budda, Basavanna and Dr.Ambedkar statues also and in this regard number of panchayats were held. According to the prosecution, the deceased and others have assaulted accused No.44 and in turn the accused have assaulted one Huchchappa, CW-50. In this regard, there are case and counter cases.
8. According to the prosecution, on 11.08.2022, at about 8.30 a.m., the dispute started between both the community people. They started to pelting stones against each other. In the said process, they have caused damage to the number of vehicles. It is also alleged that the appellants trespassed in the house of the complainant and when the deceased Yankappa tried to escape, he was caught hold and accused Nos.1, 3 and 27 assaulted him by clubs and stones causing his death. The allegations disclose that the Investigating Officer has collected CCTV footages and the present appellants were found to be amongst 12 the members of mob holding clubs. However, on perusal of the charge sheet, these appellant/accused Nos.4 to 6, 10 to 12, 14 to 16, 18, 19 and 22 to 24 as well as 28 and 30 were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 506, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST [POA] Act. Hence, the allegations of the prosecution itself disclose that they were only members of mob and pelted stones and abused with reference to the caste and damaged the property. However, no allegations were made against them in respect of they causing death of deceased Yankappa. No doubt, there are number of witnesses but the statements of all the witnesses consistently disclose that it is accused Nos.1, 3 and 27 who had assaulted the deceased by weapons which has resulted in his death. The present appellants were only alleged to be members of the mob and no 13 doubt offence under Section 149 of IPC is incorporated but there is no specific overt act alleged against them. The allegations are only omnibus allegations and the appellants are in custody since nearly 6 months. It is also evident that the complainant and other witnesses were also prosecuted in a counter case and this clearly disclose that between two communities there was a dispute which has ended in death of one of person in the village. No specific overt act is alleged against the present appellants and no doubt CCTV footages are available but that does not disclose that the appellants are involved in the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Further, the charge sheet itself discloses that they were implicated for lesser offences. The investigation is concluded and charge sheet has also been submitted. Their presence is no more required by the investigating agency. Under these circumstances, I do not find any impediment for 14 admitting the appellants on bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned H.C.G.P. can be meted out by imposing suitable conditions. Hence, in my considered opinion, the appeals can be allowed subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Both the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Koppal in SC (AC) No.76/2022 dated 16.12.2022 and 22.12.2022 are set aside. The bail petitions filed by the appellants/accused stand allowed.
The appellants are ordered to be enlarged on regular bail in Kanakagiri Police Station Crime No.85/2022 (in S.C.(AC) No.76/2022 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal) on each of them executing a personal bond in a sum of 15 Rs.1,50,000/- with one surety for the likesum subject to following conditions:
i) They shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.
ii) They shall not indulge in any criminal activities.
iii) They shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing without fail unless their presence is exempted by specific order.
iv) They shall co-operate with the Court in speedy disposal of the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE Naa