Karnataka High Court
Abhishek Gowda @ Dabbi vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 January, 2021
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5359/2020
BETWEEN:
Abishek gowda @ Dabbi
s/o late Kalegowda,
aged about 21 years,
residing at I main,
Band Box Road,
Hongasandra,
Bengaluru City-560 068. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. A.S.Kulkarni, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka,
By Bommanahalli Police Station,
Bangalore-560 068.
Represented by
State public prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru-560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri.Thejesh.P, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.299/2018
(S.C.No.414/2019) of Bommanahalli police Station, Bengaluru
for the offence punishable under Section 302, 143, 144, 147,
148 read with 149 of IPC and Section 25(1-B), (b), 27 r/w 4 of
Arms Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C by accused No.4 to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.299/2018 of Bommanahalli Police Station, registered for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. On completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed against six accused persons for offences punishable under Section 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC and under Section 25(1-B) (b), 27 r/w Section 4 of Arms Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.11.2018 at about 8:30p.m. the Asst. Sub Inspector of police of the respondent Police Station was on night duty along with another head constable and at about 1:45 a.m. on 06.11.2018 he received a message from the control room 3 that some six persons have broken and damaged the wind screen of the car of one Suresh in front of C.N.R. bar. Immediately the police went to the spot and saw that a Toyota Etios car bearing No.KA-05-AF-0497 was parked there and its front glass was broken. The person by name Suresh who was present near the car informed that at about 1:35 a.m some six persons came on 3 motor cycles shouting and holding swords and asking him to stop the car and one of them hit the front wind screen of the car with the sword and damaged and then all of them went away. Thereafter, at about 2:10 a.m. when the complainant and other police officials were searching for the accused persons, they found a dead body of a male person near C.N.R Bar lying in a pool of blood. The dead body was identified as that of one Manjunath @ Halu Manja, a rowdy sheeter of Bommanhalli Police Station. A case in Crime No.299/2018 was registered against unknown persons under Section 302 of IPC. On 09.11.2018 accused Nos.2 and 6 were arrested by Bannerghatta police for committing offences under 4 Sections 399 and 401 of IPC and a case was registered in Crime No.208/2018 of the said police station. The said accused persons confessed that along with other accused they have committed the murder of Manjunath. The said accused were arrested in connection with the present case on 14.11.2018 and the present petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.4 came to be arrested on 17.11.2018.
4. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Manjunath @ Halu Manja and others were involved in the murder of one Prasad, a friend of accused No.1, hence there was enemity. In order to eliminate the deceased, accused No.1 hatched a plan with other accused persons and thereafter on 05.11.2018 at about 10:30 p.m. all the accused assembled at C.N.R Bar near Kodichikkanahalli. Deceased Manjunath also came to the said bar and thereafter the accused persons took the deceased from the said bar to a secluded place and picked up quarrel 5 and assaulted him with deadly weapons and committed his murder.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the allegation against the present petitioner is that he has assaulted the deceased on the back of his head with a wooden rippis patti however, there are no injuries found on his head. He further submits that the statement of eyewitnesses are created and in the remand application there is no mention of recording of their statements and therefore the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses cannot be believed. He submits that investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed and accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition.
6. The learned HCGP has contended that the statement of the eyewitnesses namely, CW-4 and CW-5 clearly disclose that the petitioner has assaulted the deceased on the head with a wooden rippis patti and thereafter all the other accused have assaulted with swords and committed the murder. He submits that in 6 view of the prima facie case made out against the petitioner, he is not entitled for the relief he has sought and hence, seeks to reject the petition.
7. The incident has taken place on the intervening night of 05.11.2018 and 06.11.2018. CW-4 and CW-5 are eyewitnesses to the incident and their statements have been recorded on 06.11.2018 itself, Wherein, they have said one of the accused assaulted with a wooden rippis patti on the head of the deceased. The petitioner herein came to be arrested on 17.11.2018. On his arrest, further statement of the eyewitness have been recorded. They have identified the petitioner as the one who assaulted the deceased on his head with a wooden rippis patti.
8. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no injuries found on the head of deceased in the post mortem report, however perusal of the post mortem report disclose that there are multiple comminuted fractures present over vault of skull 7 at both frontal region and left partio temporal region, right temporal region and over the base of the skull and etc., The statements of the eyewitnesses cannot be rejected at this stage. In view of the statements of the eyewitnesses, there is a prima facie case against petitioner. All the accused have formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and they have committed murder. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, petitioner is not entitled to the relief he has sought. Accordingly petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RKA