IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 7548/2019 BETWEEN:
PRAVEEN K S/O. PRAKASH K, AGED 19 YEARS OCC: 1ST SEMESTER, B.COM STUDENT, R/AT. NO.111, PARIJNANA 20TH ‘A’ MAIN, 1ST R BLOCK NEAR RATHKAL ROAD, RAJAJINAGR BENGALURU – 560 010 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. HASHMATH PASHA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SYED MUZAKKIR AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU REP. BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.120/2019 REGISTERED BY REGISTERED BY RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 AND 201 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.11.2019 COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY K.N. PHANEENDRA, J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Syed Muzakkir Ahmed for petitioner and Sri Honnappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.1 in Crime No.120/2019 of Rajajinagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC [Now the Charge Sheet is filed].
3. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State, it is just and necessary to have the brief facts of the case on hand.
4. A person by name Arun Kumar S/o. Sudhama resident of Lakshmaiah Block, Ganganagar, Bengaluru, has lodged a complaint on 18.8.2019 stating that he has been working with one Jaikumar Jain in a wholesale cloth shop running in the name and style of M/s.Dilip Apparels, as a Manager since 15 years. The said Jaikumar Jain was residing along with his wife Pooja Jain and daughter Unnathi Jain and son Vamshi Jain at No.780/2, 5th Block, 17th B.Main, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru.
5. It is further stated that on 18.8.2019 at about 11.00 a.m., he received information from one Sanjay who is also working in the shop of deceased Jaikumar Jain that some fire incident had happened in the house of Jaikumar Jain. Therefore, immediately, this complainant went there and visited the first floor of the said house and found the blood stains on the bed, on the floor and the walls and also found the dead body of the Jaikumar Jain in burnt position. He enquired with the people who were gathered there about the daughter of the deceased and came to know that his daughter Unnathi Jain, also admitted to the hospital with burn injuries. Thereafter, he also came to know about the wife and son of the deceased, who had been to Pondichery on 17.8.2019. He suspected some foul play as son and wife of Jaikumar Jain left the house on 17.8.2019 to go to Pondichery, and the deceased Jaikumar Jain, his daughter Unnathi Jain were in the house. Therefore, he requested the police to investigate the matter.
6. During the course of investigation, the Police found that the daughter of the deceased Unnathi Jain and the present petitioner fell in love with each other and deceased Jaikumar Jain was not happy with the conduct of his daughter Unnathi Jain and in fact, Unnathi Jain was fed up with the attitude of her father. Therefore, taking advantage of the situation that her mother and brother had been to Pondicherry, she had pre-planned with the petitioner, administered some sleeping tablets to her father on 17.8.2019, in the night hours. Thereafter, she secured the presence of the petitioner and both of them with the knives caused severe injuries on Jaikumar Jain while he was sleeping indiscriminately on various parts of the body and stabbed on the neck, head and other parts and thereafter, they went out from the house and brought two bottles of petrol and poured petrol on the body of the said Jaikumar Jain and lit fire and in that context, they also suffered some burn injuries.
7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner Sri Hashmath Pasha has strenuously contended that there is no recovery as such from the petitioner but a knife was recovered from the wash basin in the House. He brought my attention to the inquest proceedings and submitted that the deceased was last seen by Sanjay but he did not disclose the same till 18.8.2019 to anybody as to he has seen the petitioner with the Unnathi Jain together in the house at any point of time. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The petitioner and the said Unnathi Jain were also admitted to the hospital with burn injuries. This also creates a doubt whether it is an accidental fire or they made any attempts to save the deceased. It is also contended that the statement of Sanjay and other circumstantial witnesses who have seen A1 and A2 together in the house of Jaikumar Jain i.e., the statements of CWs.5, 6 and 7 were recorded on 18.8.2019 though made some improvements during their statement. The blood stained clothes were recovered from the petitioner later on 19.8.2019 and he is in custody of police since 19.8.2019 till the remand application. The participation of the accused was not at all spoken to by anybody even in the hospital. Nothing has been stated with regard to the history and with regard to making allegation against the petitioner. It is further submitted that after investigation, charge sheet has been filed and petitioner is no more required for any investigation and he is a student. Therefore, his future will be spoiled if he is not released on bail. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State submitted that, though there are some discrepancies, at this stage, they will not take away the entire case of the prosecution. There are strong materials available against the petitioner and the said Unnathi Jain and that they were present at the time of incident at the house of Jaikumar Jain which is specifically spoken to by CWs.5, 6 and 7 at 3.33 a.m., Therefore it creates a doubt with regard to the presence of the petitioner in the house of Jaikumar Jain at that particular point of time.
9. The police have also collected the call details which shows that the petitioner was very much present in his house at 3.55 a.m., The call details also establish that the accused No.2 has called this petitioner at 1.07 a.m., and thereafter she again called him at 3.27 a.m., Therefore, it creates a doubt with regard to the presence of the accused petitioner at the spot.
10. The discrepancy in the statement of the complainant has been explained in the further statement and the discrepancy in the call details explained by the accused himself that at 3.33 a.m., he received phone call from his father and he went to his house and come back at 6.31 a.m., once again. Therefore, the statements of CWs.5 to 7 cannot be at this stage easily brushed aside. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
11. On careful perusal of the entire Charge Sheet materials on record, there are materials collected by the police to establish that the petitioner had also sustained some burn injury that remained un-explained at this stage. It is also evident from the records that the deceased not only died due to burn injuries, but also on sustaining as many as 17 stab injuries on the body of the deceased. Only A1 who was present with her father has to explain as to what happened in the night on that day. The said statement of the victim is not available and it is the burden on her to explain that incident during the course of trial.
12. Be that as it may, apart from the above circumstance as could be seen from the statements of CWs.
5 to 7, they have categorically stated that they knew that Unnathi Jain was aged 15 years and she fell in love with this petitioner and their love affair came to the knowledge of Jaikumar Jain and he actually advised Unnathi Jain to leave that affair and to read properly to achieve her goals in the life. In this context, he has also assaulted her on many times. They have further stated in their statement that on 17.8.2019, the mother and brother of A2 had been to Pondicherry. As it was a holiday to the cloth shop, these witnesses had been to Hotel at 11.45 p.m., and they were very leisurely coming back at 1.30 a.m., when they were proceeding near the house of Jaikumar Jain, they observed A2 Unnathi Jain was waiting for somebody and at that time, this petitioner came to that particular house and they were talking to each other. Therefore, the witnesses have suspected and they stayed there talking together till 2.15 a.m., Thereafter, they also heard some murmuring sound of the deceased Jaikumar Jain and at about 6.15 a.m., on the morning of 18.8.2019 both the accused went out from the house by locking the door. They again came back at 8.30 a.m., along with two bottles of petrol and thereafter at about 10.45 a.m., some smoke was coming from the house of the said Jaikumar Jain. Immediately, these witnesses observed that A1 and A2 went away from the house and they also sustained some burn injuries to their legs. Even the petitioner also sustained some burn injuries. On enquiry they did not say anything, but they were fully afraid. Afterwards, these witnesses went inside the house and found the dead body of the deceased and fire extinguisher also came and shifted the body to the hospital and they also found lot of injuries on all the parts of the body of the deceased.
13. Apart from the above, the Post Mortem report also discloses that the deceased has sustained as many as 17 stab injuries. During the course of investigation, the police have also collected the blood stained knife and one blood stained T.Shirt and another blood stained T.Shirt and mobile from the petitioner and the vehicle Suzuki Access No.KA-02/JM-1339 which was actually seen by the witnesses on that particular date on which the petitioner came to the house of the deceased. The police have also collected materials that, purchasing of sleeping tablets and petrol by the accused persons to connect the accused.
14. Though there is some discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses particularly, the learned counsel submitted that if at all CWs.5 to 7 have seen the petitioner and the Accused No.2, they would have informed Arun Kumar in this regard but the FIR does not disclose such information to Arun Kumar. But during the course of further statement, it is explained by Arun Kumar that he came to know the presence of the accused at that time only in the night on 18.8.2019. Therefore, he gave further statement. Even the discrepancy in the call details also got explained by the police in the statement of the accused that at 3.55 a.m., he received the phone call from his father and he went to his house and came back at 6.30 a.m., whether it is true or not has to be thrashed out during the course of full dressed trial. Further, added to that, he has not explained as to how he sustained injuries to his legs on that particular date. Likewise, as I have already noted A2 has also not stated anything about the burn injuries sustained by him and as to what happened on that particular day. Therefore, under the above said facts and circumstances in my opinion, the prosecution has placed sufficient materials at this stage to hold that the prosecution has strong prima facie case against the petitioner. Therefore, though the charge sheet has already been filed, under the above said circumstance, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed.
PL* Sd/- JUDGE