Hanamant S/O Mallappa Naik vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 2785 Kant

                                        1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 13 T H DAY OF JULY, 2021
                                BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

         CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101195 OF 2021

   BETWEEN
   HANAMANT S/O M ALLAPPA NAIK
   AGE 42 YEARS , OCC: AGRI CULT URE,
   R/O. METGUD 587313,
   TQ MUDHOL, DIST . BA GALK OT.
                                                              ...PETITIONER

   (BY SRI.PRASHAN T S KADADEVAR, A DV.)

   AND

   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   REP. BY SPP,
   HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
   DHARWAD BEN CH AT DHARWAD,
   THROUGH ITS LOK APUR PS
                                                            ...RESPONDENT
   (BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI , HCGP)

         THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
   CR.P.C.,    PRAYIN G       TO    RELEASE             THE     PETITIONER
   (ACCUSED)     ON     BAIL IN         LOKA PUR        POLICE STATION
   CRIME NO.06/ 2021 F OR THE OFF ENCES PUNISHABLE
   UNDER      SECTION    323,      302          OF   I PC   NOW   PENDIN G
   BEFORE     THE    COURT         OF       I   ADDL.       DISTRICT   AND
   SESSIONS         JUD GE,        BAGALK OT,               SITTING     AT
   JAMAKHNADI IN S.C.NO.5013/2021.
                             2




     THIS    CRIMINAL     PETITION    COMING     ON    FOR
ORDERS      THIS   DAY,     THE    COURT     MADE      THE
FOLLOWING:
                        ORDER

This petition is filed by sole accused under

Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity)

seeking bail in Crime No.06/2021 (pending in SC

No.5013/2021 on the file of Prl. District and Sessions

Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Bagalkote) of Lokapur

Police Station for the offences punishable under

Section 302 and 323 of The Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).

2. The case of the prosecution is that one

Govindappa s/o Venkappa Kajjidoni has lodged a

complaint stating that he is residing in Sonna village

of Bilagi taluka and now he is residing at Kontikalla

village along with his family and his father late

Venkappa had 4 children including deceased Shobha.

The deceased Shobha was married to

petitioner/accused Hanumappa of Metgud village of

Mudhol taluka and both have two children namely

Venkatesh and Aishwarya. It is further stated that

petitioner/accused is basically drunkard and doesn't

work at farm and he has two brothers namely

Ningappa and Shrikant and they all living together.

The petitioner/accused is residing at farm house along

with his wife Shobha. It is further stated that his

daughter Aishwaya staying with Govindappa and his

son Venkatesh is staying with his uncles Ningappa and

Shrikant. It is further stated that petitioner/accused

is misbehaving and harassing his wife Shobha and for

that reason elders of the village and complainant and

their mother went to Metgud village and advised the

petitioner/accused and for some days he was silent

and later started to harass his wife deceased Shobha.

It is further stated that on 23.01.2021 at 6 a.m.

complainant/Govindappa received information from

his uncle Nagappa that his sister Shobha has been

killed by her husband/petitioner after suspecting her

character on 22.01.2021. It is further stated that

petitioner/accused attacked the deceased with koyta

with an intention to kill her in their farm house. The

complainant went along with mother and other

villagers and saw his sister fell down in blood with

marks on her face, neck and all over the body and he

came to know that petitioner/accused killed his wife

Shobha suspecting her character. The said complaint

came to be registered in Crime No.06/2021 of Lokapur

Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The

petitioner came to be arrested on 24.01.2021 and he

is remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, charge

sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the

offence punishable under Sections 323 and 302 of

IPC. The Petitioner/accused has filed bail application

in SC No.5012/2021 and the same came to be

rejected by I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Bagalkot, sitting at Jamakhandi by order dated

07.06.2021. Therefore, the petitioner/accused is

before this Court seeking bail.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and the learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent-State.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner/accused that petitioner is innocent,

he has not committed any offence as alleged against

him and he has been falsely implicated in the case.

He further contends that there are no eye witnesses to

the incident and the case of the prosecution is based

on circumstantial evidence. He further contends that

as per inquest mahazer, deceased was alone in the

farm house on the previous evening of the incident.

The extra judicial confession said to have been made

by petitioner/accused before CW.6 is weak piece of

evidence and it requires corroboration and on that

point he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Sahadevan and another

V/s. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2012) 6

Supreme Court Cases 403. Paragraph No.14 of the

said judgment is as below:

"It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the Court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra- judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra- judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration."

He further contends that investigation is over,

charge sheet has been filed and therefore, the

petitioner/accused is not required for any custodial

interrogation. With this, he prayed for allowing the

petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader has contended that the offence alleged

against the petitioner/accused is a heinous offence

punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The

petitioner/accused has made extra judicial confession

before CW.6. The call details of the deceased and

CW-31 goes to show that they were in contact

through telephone. He further contends that on

perusal of the charge sheet material, it shows that

there is a prima facie case against him for the alleged

offences. It is his further contention that if, the

petitioner is granted bail, he will tamper the

prosecution witnesses and flees from justice. With

this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Having regard to the submission made by

the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the

learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court

has gone through the charge sheet records.

7. The accusation leveled against the

petitioner is that the petitioner/accused was

suspecting the fidelity of his wife and that the

deceased was an illicit relationship with one Satya

Venkappa Kiler and therefore, the

petitioner/accused assaulted the deceased with

koyta on her face, neck and other parts of the

body and caused her death. There are no eye

witnesses to the incident and the case of the

prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.

One of the main circumstance on which the

prosecution is basing its case is extra judicial

confession made by petitioner/accused before

CW.6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Sahadevan and another(Supra) has held that extra

judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and

requires corroboration by other prosecution evidences.

As the case of the prosecution is based on

circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove

it's case beyond all reasonable doubt. As the charge

sheet has been filed, petitioner is not required for any

custodial interrogation. There are no criminal

antecedents of the petitioner. The main objection of

the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail,

the petitioner/accused may likely to cause threat to

complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The

same may be set right by imposing some stringent

conditions.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case

and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the

view that there are valid grounds for granting bail

subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is

allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused shall be

released on bail in Crime No.06/2021 of Lokapur

Police Station subject to the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall execute a personal

bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

one lakh only) with one surety for the like

sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional

Court.

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in

tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The petitioner shall attend the Court on all

dates of hearing unless exempted and co-

operate in speedy disposal of the case.

Sd/-

JUDGE

H MB