Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: kcoca in Bharath K N vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 June, 2023Matching Fragments
This appeal is filed by the appellant-accused No.9 under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST (POA) Act'), for setting aside the order of dismissal of bail, dated 28.07.2022, passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, in Crl.Misc.No.1013/2022, whereby the trial Court rejected the bail in respect of the appellant in Cr.No.131/2020 registered by Gubbi police and charge sheeted for the offences punishable NC: 2023:KHC:21602 under sections 109, 143, 147, 148, 302, 201, 212, 120(B) read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Later, Section 3(1)(i)(2)(3)(4) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'KCOCA') has been added and now, the case is pending before the Principal City Civil Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-1).
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the allegation against the appellant is that he had given information to accused No.1 regarding the movement of the deceased and in turn, accused Nos.1, 4 to 8 committed murder of the deceased. It is further contended that the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru has granted bail to accused Nos.13 to 16. The learned counsel has further contended that absolutely, there is no material to show that the appellant-accused No.9 has committed the murder of the deceased, except giving information to accused No.1 regarding movement of the deceased. The learned counsel also contended that as per Section 19 of KCOCA, the statement can only be recorded by the Superintendent of Police but not the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In this case, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has recorded the statement, which is NC: 2023:KHC:21602 not permissible. Therefore, the confession statement cannot be relied upon by this Court. The learned counsel also contended that appellant-accused No.9 is in custody for almost one year. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the records. The records reveal that previously, the police had not invoked Section 3 of KCOCA. Accused Nos.1 to 5 have said to be the syndicate for the purpose of Section 3 of NC: 2023:KHC:21602 KCOCA. The allegation against appellant-accused No.9 is that he gave intimation to accused No.1 regarding the movement of the deceased and accordingly, accused Nos.1, 4 to 8 and 10 who are the assailants, committed the murder of deceased. Accused No.13 gave sim-card to accused No.12. Therefore, accused No.12 used the sim-card. Like wise, accused Nos.15 and 14 said to be given supari to accused No.1. Accused No.16 provided sim-card to accused No.1 and they have been granted bail.
7. Of course, as per the submission of learned High Court Government Pleader, the Deputy Superintendent of Police is the authorized person for recording the statement under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act, though he is not permitted to record the voluntary statement under Section 19 of KCOCA. The statement of appellant-accused No.9 has been recorded by Deputy Superintendent of Police on 24.06.2022, at that time, KCOCA was not invoked by the state. Such being the case, the question of recording the statement by the Superintendent of Police does not arise, but he is an authorised person to record the statement in SC/ST (POA) ACT.