IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4110/2019 BETWEEN:
Sri. Rajshekar, 23 years, S/o. Venkateshappa, R/at Khadripura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk -563 101. …Petitioner (By Sri. M.R. Nanjunda Gowda., Advocate) AND The State of Karnataka, By Kolar Rural Police. …Respondent (By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.260/2018 of Kolar Rural Police Station, Kolar for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 341, 504, 120-B, 109, 201 read with 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition is coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/Accused No.2 under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to enlarge him on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.260/2018 of Kolar Rural Police Station, Kolar for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that there were civil dispute between the complainant and accused No.3. It is further alleged that on 21.05.2018 at about 7.30 a.m. complainant along with his Maternal uncle Shyam Sundar was returning from a garden land on the motorcycle. On the way in front of the house of accused No.3- Venkateshappa at about 8:30 a.m. he stopped the motorcycle on which the deceased and the complainant were proceeding under the guise of talking and when the complainant was talking with accused No.3 with regard to settlement, at that time accused Nos. 1 and 2 came on two wheeler armed with knife and with an intention to kill deceased Bharath they took out the knife and stabbed on the left abdomen and thereafter accused No.2 also stabbed on the right abdomen and on the right shoulder. At that time, Shyam Sundar came and by seeing him they fled away from the place. On the basis of a complaint, a case was registered.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 that the alleged incident has taken place on 21.05.2018 and the deceased died on 24.05.2018 i.e., after three days of the incident. The facts and circumstances clearly goes to show that accused No.2 was not having any intention of causing death of the deceased. If he would have had the intention, he could have chopped him at the spot itself. Further, submits that in similar facts and circumstances accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have already been released on bail by this Court and the accused/petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail. He further alleged that there is contrary and inconsistency between the circular evidence and the medical evidence. The medical records show that the deceased has suffered six injuries and as per the statement of the eye witnesses they said that they have only stabbed two times. It is his further submission that the statement of the eye witnesses has been recorded only on 26.05.2018. Hence, there is a delay in recording the statement of the eye witnesses. The investigating officer was not prevented from recording the statement of eye witnesses immediately after the incident. He further submits that civil disputes are also pending between the parties. He is ready to cooperate with further investigation or interrogation. Further, submits that the accused/petitioner is a farmer and his presence is very much required for the purpose of attending field work. He is ready to offer sureties and to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that there are eye witnesses to the alleged incident and it is accused No.2 who came on two wheeler along with accused No.1. Accused No.1 stabbed on the left abdomen with a knife and at the same time accused no.2 also stabbed with knife on the right side of the abdomen, which is considered to be the vital part of the body and the victim was shifted to hospital and on 24.05.2019 he succumbed to the injuries. The postmortem report and the statement of eye witnesses corroborate with each other. It is his further submission that even the knife which has been used by accused No.2 is recovered at his instance. There is a serious material as against the petitioner/accused. The grounds of parity cannot be extended to the petitioner/accused No.2. Hence, on these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the records.
7. By going through the contents of the complaint and other material which have been made available during the course of investigation, there is a material to connect the accused No.2/petitioner to show that it is accused No.2 who took knife which he had carried and he has stabbed at the right side of the abdomen of the deceased and even though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 the inconsistency in the statement of the eye witnesses and the medical evidence. It is well proposition of law, if there is any inconsistency between medical evidence and ocular evidence i.e., ocular evidence which has to be looked into only for the purpose of appreciation is concerned and accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have been released on bail but they stand in different footing and not in the same position as that of accused No.2 stands. Though it is contended that the petitioner/accused No.2 is not required for the purpose of further investigation or interrogation but the petitioner/accused No.2 has involved in such a serious offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There are serious overt-act as against the petitioner/accused. Then under such circumstances, I feel that it is not a fit case to release accused No.2 on bail. Hence, petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner/accused No.2 to move for bail after complainant and eye witnesses are examined before the Court below.
Sd/- JUDGE BVK