Karnataka High Court
Ningappa S/O Siddappa Madar vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 June, 2022
Author: K. Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101614/2022
BETWEEN:
1 . NINGAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA MADAR
AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O.KESARABAVI, TQ. ILKAL
DIST. BAGALKOT-587125
2 . RAMESH S/O KALAKAPAP WADDAR
AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TUMBA VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL
DIST. BAGALKOT-587125
3 . HANAMANT S/O LAXMAN WADDAR
AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TUMBA VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL
DIST. BAGALKOT-587125
.. PETITIONERs
(BY SRI. J. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(THROUGH ILAKAL RURAL P.S)
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
2
BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011
.. RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING
TO ALLOW THIS PETITION, GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS
IN CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.98/2021 OF ILAKAL RURAL P.S., CHARGE
SHEETED FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 302, 120(B), 201 R/W 149 OF IPC
(PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BAGALKOTE IN S.C. NO.20/2022) ON THE PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL
HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity) for granting bail in Crime No.98/2021 registered by the Ilakal Rural Police, Bagalkot district for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for brevity).
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
3
3. The case of the prosecution is that, accused No.2 Huligevva initially filed a missing complaint on 01.11.2021 alleging that her husband deceased Shantappa found missing from the house on 23.10.2021, as he did not return on that day. After missing complaint registered by the police, once again the brother of deceased-Murteppa filed a complaint before the police on 17.11.2021 alleging that his brother's wife-Huligevva and his sister son Basavaraj were having illegal intimacy and there was quarrel between the husband and wife. A panchayat was held but they did not disconnect their intimacy. Therefore, there was suspicion that these people must have done something to his brother. After receiving the complaint, the police arrested accused Nos.1 and 2. Subsequently, they have confessed the crime of they having committed the murder of deceased Shantappa in the house at 12.30 pm on 23.11.2021 and dead body was carried in a car and thrown into the River Krishna and thereby they destroyed the evidence. Subsequently on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2, they arrested these petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 who are friends of accused No.1-Basavaraj. They are arrested by the police on 19.11.2021 and they have been remanded to 4 judicial custody. Their bail application before the learned Sessions Judge came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence. They have been falsely implicated only on the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2. Previously, accused No.2 herself, who is the wife of the deceased, lodged a missing complaint. At that time, the brother of the deceased namely Murteppa also accompanied the complainant to the police station but he did not suspect anything at that time, but after almost 17 days he came up with a cooked up story and suspected accused Nos.1 and 2 and thereafter they have been arrested. But nothing has been recovered including the dead body to prove the case against the petitioners. Investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Even otherwise, the main allegation against accused No.1 who assaulted the deceased on the head with an axe and accused No.3, who is sated to have squeezed the neck of the deceased but there is no evidence. The statement of daughter of accused No.2 and the deceased-Akshata- 5 CW-11 has been recorded after a long gap in falsely implicating accused Nos.1 and 2 in this case. Therefore, her statement is not admissible at this stage without going for trial. They are ready to abide by any conditions. Hence, prayed for granting bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the bail petition and contended that the statements of CW-11, who is an eye witness to the incident, is the daughter of accused No.2 and the deceased has categorically stated that she saw the incident and her mother and other accused committing murder of her father. She was under the custody of her mother and until arrest of her mother, she(CW-11) was not able to whisper anything because of fear as she was under the custody of her mother. Therefore, her statement clearly reveals the accused persons committed murder of deceased Shantappa. They have thrown the dead body into the Krishna river where there are most crocodiles in the river and must have eaten the dead body. Therefore, it is not possible for the police to recover the dead body. The accused persons have shown the place where the dead body was thrown into the river and the police found some blood stains on 6 the speaker of the car in which they shifted the dead body and the blood sample is sent to FSL for DNA test and the report is awaited. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.
7. On perusal of the records, of course accused No.2, herself lodged a missing complaint that her husband was missing from the house from morning on 23.10.2021. Thereafter, on 17.11.2021, the brother of the deceased Murteppa suspected that accused Nos.1 and 2 might have committed murder along with some other persons. After arresting accused Nos.1 and 2 it was also revealed that accused Nos.1 and 2 are having illicit intimacy between them. The same was objected by deceased Shantappa and panchayat was also convened between the family members and in spite of that, they continued to have intimacy between them. The deceased was quarrelling with accused No.2. Then accused No.1 came for rescuing and accused Nos.3 to 5, who are said to be the friends of accused No.1, he secured their help and committed murder of the deceased in the house of accused No.2. Accused 7 No.1 assaulted on the head with an axe and accused NO.3- Ningappa, the 1st petitioner, is said to have sequezed the neck and commit murder. Thereafter they shifted the dead body in a Maruti car belonging to CW-19 which was purchased in the name of CW-
20.
8. As per the arguments of the learned Government Pleader CWs.23 and 24 are the neighbours who saw the accused persons near the house of the deceased which is nothing but the place of incident.. However, the daughter of the deceased Shantappa namely Akshata-CW-11 who is stated to be an eye witness to the incident, of course her statement was recorded after arrest of the accused persons and she was in the custody of accused No.2-who is her mother but she has not whispered the fact to any persons. Of course the dead body is not traced by the police. It might have been eaten by the crocodiles when it was thrown. But the 164 statement of the Akshata-CW-11 reveals accused No.3 squeezed the neck of her father and at that time, accused No.1 assaulted with an axe on the head which caused injury. When the deceased was sleeping in the house, accused 8 No.2 might have opened the door facilitating the other accused to come inside and to commit murder. To screen the offence, she has filed a missing complaint. Subsequently, she is arrayed as accused. The blood sample of the deceased taken from the car in which dead body was shifted has been sent to FSL for DNA test for comparison of blood sample of daughter CW-11 still pending. But absolutely there is no evidence against accused Nos.4 and 5 as accused No.3's name found in the statement of the eyewitness as he squeezed the neck of the deceased and there are no serious overt acts against the other accused except shifting the dead body. Even accused No.3 carried dead body and thereafter they kept the dead body in the car and shifted the dead body. Of course, a mere suspicion, however grave, cannot find place of proof which is settled position of law but there is eye witness to the incident i.e. the daughter of the deceased and accused No.2, who is a child witness aged about 15 years. Therefore, considering the fact and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioner No.1/accused No.3 is not entitled for bail as there is some material evidence against accused No.3 but absolutely, as there is no evidence against petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.4 and 5 , therefore, by imposing certain 9 stringent conditions, if petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.4 and 5 are granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. Criminal Petition filed by petitioner No.1/accused No.3 is rejected.
10. Criminal Petition in respect of petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused No.4 and 5 is allowed. The Committal Court/trial Court is directed to release the petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.4 and 5 on bail in Crime No.98/2021 registered by the Ilakal Police, Bagalkot district, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Committal Court.
ii. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall not indulge in similar offence.
10
iv. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission of the trial court.
If any of the conditions is violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv