IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8808/2018 Between:
Naveena Kumara M @ Naveena Son of Mayagappa Aged about 26 years Resident at Honnagatta Village Kasaba Hobli Doddaballapura Taluk Bengaluru Rural District – 561 203. ...Petitioner (By Sri Manjunath M.R., Advocate for Sri R.Vasanthkumar, Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka By Doddaballapura Rural Police Station Bangalore Rural District Rep by its State Public Prosecutor High Court Complex Bengaluru – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Smt. B.G. Namitha Mahesh, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.196/2018 (C.C.No.739/2018) of Doddaballapura Rural Police Station, Bangalore City for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail in Crime No.196/2018 (C.C.No.739/2018) of Doddaballapura Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 R/w 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that the complainant is brother of the deceased and they were working as mason. Two months earlier to the alleged incident, the deceased and petitioner – accused No.3 have quarreled with each other for some silly reason. The complainant and other villagers advised them. In spite of the same, they continued the grudge with the deceased. In that light, on 20.04.2018 the deceased left the house and did not return to the house. In the late night hours at about 10.30 p.m., when complainant and his father made a phone call to the mobile of the deceased, the phone rang but he did not receive the call. Then they started searching the whereabouts of the deceased. At that time, accused came in front of them and disclosed about the murder of the deceased and the burial of the dead body in sand oni. Consequently, they rushed to the spot and there they saw the dead body of the deceased. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. There are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The said rivalry is between accused No.1 and the deceased. Petitioner - accused No.3 is no way concerned with the alleged crime. It is also his further submission that immediately after they came to know that dead body was buried in the sand oni, the witnesses have gone to the place and identified the body and thereafter, the complaint has been filed and there is no information in the FIR of the police. It is also submitted that there is no connecting link between accused No.3 and the alleged offence and already charge sheet has been filed and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner – accused No.3 is not necessary. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner – accused No.3, along with accused Nos.1 and 2, have taken the deceased to the bar and restaurant and thereafter making the deceased to drink thereafter, they have taken him in an auto and at about 2.30, p.m. they quarreled with the deceased and assaulted with hand, kicked him and finally brought him to the sand oni and they assaulted with stone and thereby committed murder of the deceased. There are witnesses who have last seen the deceased along with accused No.3 – petitioner. There is strong motive and even examination of the body is also done in the presence of the witnesses. She further submitted that post mortem report indicates that the death is due to head injury. All these materials clearly go to show that accused No.3 – petitioner is involved in the commission of offence of murder which is punishable with death or imprisonment of life. On these grounds, she prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials, which have been produced along with the petition.
7. A close reading of the contents of the documents and charge sheet reveals that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. But there is strong motive and apart from that, CW-49 and CW-30 i.e., witnesses have last seen the accused and the deceased together. PW-29 is auto driver who has last seen the accused and the deceased going in an auto rickshaw. PW-30 is the attendar in the bar and restaurant who has seen the accused persons taking drinks in the said Akshaya Bar and Restaurant. Apart from the above circumstantial evidence, the extra judicial confession made by accused No.3 – petitioner to the complainant that they have committed murder and buried the body in the sand oni has to be taken note of. All these circumstances and post mortem report also disclose the fact that death is due to head injury. In the said facts and circumstances, there is strong evidence pointed out against the accused and prima-facie there is material against the accused No.3 – petitioner for the offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There are no grounds to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE