Karnataka High Court
Sri Shrikant vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2025
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:875
CRL.A No. 200262 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200262 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI SHRIKANT,
S/O BASAPPA BIRADAR,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCC:MECHANIC,
R/O JALAGERI, TQ: TIKOTA,
DIST: VIJAYPUR-586 101.
(ACCUSED-3 AS PER CHARGE SHEET)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S S MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by
THROUGH PSI, TIKOTA POLICE STATION,
VEDAVATHI A K BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: High ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE,
Court of
Karnataka HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALABURAGI-585 103.
2. SRI BILIYANASIDDA,
S/O RAMAPPA KALLIMANI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
R/O JALAGERI, TQ:TIKOTA,
DIST: VIJAYPUR-586 101.
(DEFACTO COMPLAINANT)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI MOIN AKTHAR NADAF, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:875
CRL.A No. 200262 of 2024
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/SEC. 14-A(2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2024 PASSED BY
THE HONOURABLE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND SPECIAL JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA IN CRIMINAL
MISC.NO.910/2024 AND ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL TIKOTA PS
CRIME NO.8/2024 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 364, 302, 201 R/W SECTION 34
OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT 2015
ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR IN
SPECIAL CASE SC/ST NO.18/2024 ON SUCH TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO
IMPOSE UPON HIM IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, for setting aside the order dated 27.06.2024 passed by learned II Additional District and Sessions and Special Judge, Vijayapura in Crl.Misc.No.910/2024 for having rejected the bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:875 CRL.A No. 200262 of 2024
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Case of the prosecution is that on basis of the complaint of father of the deceased Sri. Biliyanasidda, a missing complaint was registered by the Police that on 30.12.2023, two persons came and asked him about his son Santosh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), accordingly, after having food, his son Santhosh went out, came inside and again went along with those two persons. Thereafter, he was found missing, and his phone was not reachable, hence, missing complaint came to be filed by his father. Subsequently, on 06.01.2024, the complainant got the information that accused Nos.1 and 2 were found with the company of the deceased and thereafter, the Police arrested accused No.1 on 21.01.2024, he has confessed the crime and stated he committed the murder of Santosh along with accused No.2 after making him -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:875 CRL.A No. 200262 of 2024 drink alcohol, and burnt the dead body. Subsequently, the further statement was recorded where it is stated that that the present appellant was also having enmity with the deceased and therefore, he said to have given contract for Rs.50,000/- to accused No.2 for committing his murder. Accordingly, accused No.2 said to have committed murder. On the basis of the statement, this petitioner was arrested on 25.01.2024 and thereafter, the Police filed charge sheet. His bail petition came to be rejected and hence, he is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the story of the prosecution, the name of this appellant was mentioned even in the voluntary statement of accused No.1. He had stated that himself and accused No.2 committed murder due to the previous enmity between them and this appellant is nothing to do with the crime. In the further statement they have reiterated the name of this accused and there is no connecting evidence. Even otherwise, the case is based upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:875 CRL.A No. 200262 of 2024 He is in custody for almost one year. Trial not yet begun. Hence, prayed for grant of bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that this appellant gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- by obtaining the money from Diamond Co- operative Societies Bank and given to accused No.2 who is contract killer and accused No.2 is still absconding not yet arrested, therefore, the trial is not yet begun. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records which reveal that the deceased Santhosh was missing from home on 30.12.2023 and that accused Nos.1 and 2 took him in their motorcycle which was seen by two witnesses as a last seen theory, a circumstance against the accused Nos.1 and 2 while accompanying the deceased, CW.15 and CW.22. It is alleged that after make him fully drunk, the accused persons committed murder, by using sulation -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:875 CRL.A No. 200262 of 2024 tube burnt the dead body and buried it by dumping the stones on the ditch. It is further case of the prosecution that there was enmity between this appellant and the deceased as the deceased used to collect money from him, assaulted him and threatened to file a false complaint against him. Therefore, he was fed up with the attitude of the deceased and constrained to commit murder. By the time, he came and contact accused No.2, accused No.2 said to contact killer who demanded Rs.1,00,000/- for committing the murder. This appellant unable to pay Rs.1,00,000/-, bargained, later, the accused No.2 agreed to commit murder by receiving Rs.50,000/-. The present appellant said to went to the Diamond Co-operative Societies Bank where he is having a pigmy amount where he made some deposits in the bank and he withdrawn Rs.62,000/- out of Rs.75,000/- in his credit and Rs.50,000/- has been given to the accused No.2. Accordingly, the accused No.2 requested the said appellant to purchase 2 liters of petrol and sulation tube for committing murder by tying the legs and closing the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:875 CRL.A No. 200262 of 2024 mouth etc. Accordingly, this appellant purchased petrol at petrol bunk, sulation tube from a shop and handedover to the accused No.2 and accordingly, accused Nos.1 and 2 said to have committed murder as their previous plan and conspiracy was made between them in a Adarsh Lodge. After the arrest of this petitioner, during the interrogation by the police, this appellant confessed the crime and he has shown the petrol bunk where the staff of the petrol bunk one Suresh identified that this appellant purchased 2 liters of petrol in a bottle. Another witness Mayura who has also given statement that this appellant purchased sulation tube. One Sangamesh, the employee of the Diamond Co-operative Societies Bank stated in his statement that this appellant has obtained Rs.62,000/- on 16.12.2023 and later, he came to know that the amount was paid to accused No.2 for killing the deceased. These three circumstantial witnesses have given evidence against this accused person and supports the case of the prosecution based on the circumstantial evidence but not direct evidence. The bail application of accused No.1 was -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:875 CRL.A No. 200262 of 2024 rejected based on circumstances of last seen theory and recovery of the dead body from the confession statement of accused No.1, which is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Apart from that, the another prosecution circumstance is, purchase of petrol in bunk and sulation tube and withdrawing money from the bank have given statement against this appellant on the day the accused Nos.1 and 2 used for commission of murder of the deceased and amount paid by him for killing the deceased have connected the accused in crime. Of course, since one year he is in custody and the trial is yet to begin, the accused No.2 still absconding and Police have filed charge sheet against them by showing absconding. It may be the Sessions Court waiting for the arresting of the accused No.2, therefore, trial might have not started. However, it is to be considered that if the accused No.2 is not arrested, the trial Court shall split the case against the absconding accused and proceed with the trial. Learned counsel for the appellant not produced order sheet of the trial Court for the best reason known to him. Therefore, -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:875 CRL.A No. 200262 of 2024 considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the materials placed on record for having committed the murder of the deceased by contract killing and disposing off the body by burning and also buried the body by the accused persons on the request of the accused. This offence is serious one and granting bail at this stage will definitely cause further delay in the trial and accused No.2 still not yet arrested by the Police. When such being the case, it is not a fit case for setting aside the order, allowing the appeal and granting bail. Accordingly, bail application of the appellant is rightly dismissed by the trial Court and therefore, nothing to interfere in the said order.
7. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. However, Special Court is directed to split up the case against the absconding accused and proceed with the trial without causing any delay.
Sd/-
(K NATARAJAN) JUDGE NR/-
Sl No.: 1