IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2568 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Joseph S/o. Micheal, Aged about 28 years Durgaparameshwari Road, Next to ATM, Bangalore-560 091 …PETITIONER (BY SRI NARAYANASWAMY K.N. ADVOCATE) AND:
State by Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bangalore City, Represented by State Public Prosecutor. (High Court of Karnataka) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP) ******* THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO. 184/2017 OF JNANABHARATHI P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 302, 120B READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The respondent-police have registered a case in Crime No.184/2017 for the offences under Sections 302 and 148 read with Section 149 of IPC with other offences.
3. The brief facts of the case are that a lady by name Manjula lodged a complaint that her brother Arjun @ Thatte was working as a Car Driver and he was not regularly going to the work. He had once been to the jail and he was a rowdy sheeter. In this it is stated that on 24.08.2017 one Joseph has telephoned to the deceased and therefore, the deceased went out from the house stating that he would like to meet Joseph and come back. At about 7.30 p.m., she received an information from one Ravi to the effect that Arjun was done to death by some unknown persons in the NSC Grave Yard. Immediately she went there and saw the dead body of her brother. On the basis of the above said complaint, the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. In the charge-sheet it is stated that totally six accused were involved in the case. There are eye-witnesses to the incident and eye- witnesses version discloses that on that particular day and at the time of the incident one Hanumantha @ Motu has claimed to be the eye-witness told that accused Joseph and others were assaulting the deceased. Immediately the eye-witnesses CWs.14 to 18 went to that particular place and they saw at a distance of 200 to 250 feet the accused were assaulting the deceased and thereafter holding deadly weapons in their hands they were passing through. The statement of the Hanumantha was also recorded after long lapse of time. His 164 Statement was also recorded. In his statement he has categorically stated that on the particular date of incident he was also present at the scene of offence with Joseph. Joseph came to the spot and started talking at that time other two persons Deepu and Jayanath were also present with accused No.1. Accused No.2 - Jayanth has given a long chopper to Joseph and in fact Joseph has assaulted on the head and neck of the deceased and the said Deepu and Jayanath also assaulted the deceased. In that context, it is stated by the said Hanumantha that accused No.1 - petitioner has also told the other two persons to do away with the life of the witness Hanumantha. When they turned towards this Hanumantha the eye-witness, he escaped from their clutches and ran away and thereafter went to the eye-witness and told about the incident.
4. The 164 Cr.P.C statement of Hanumantha depicts the specific overt-act of these three persons, particularly Joseph, Deepu and Jayanth. So far as other accused persons 4 to 6 are concerned, he has not mentioned their names and they have been released on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is long delay in recording the statement of said Hanumantha by the police and also further delay in getting recorded the 164 Statement of the other witnesses. However, the other witnesses who were sighted as eye-witnesses who have seen the incident at the distance of 200 to 250 feet away, they have categorically stated that accused Nos. 1 to 3 hitting the deceased and immediately he informed the eye- witnesses and then they went and saw that the accused were assaulting the deceased. Therefore, the statement of eye-witnesses so far Hanumantha was concerned, he was there at the time of incident and he informed eye- witnesses. Further Hanumantha in 164 and 161 statements has contended so far as the presence of these petitioners at the spot and assaulting the deceased. Therefore, under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any strong reason to disbelieve the version of the eye-witnesses i.e. Hanumantha at this stage. During the course of evidence, the same has to be thrashed out whether his statement has to be believed or not. In the above circumstances, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sbs*