Yamanappa S/O Rudrappa Chikkur vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 4712 Kant

                            1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 25 T H DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

                         BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100285/2021

   BETWEEN:

   YAMANAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA CHIKKUR
   AGED 62 YEARS,
   RESIDENT OF NARENUR VILLAGE,
   TALUK: BADAMI,
   DISTRICT: BAGALKOT..
                                 ...APPELLANT
   (BY SRI MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI,
   ADVOCATE)

   AND:

   1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
          THROUGH KERUR POLICE STATION,
          TALUK: BADAMI,
          DISTRICT: BAGALKOT,
          NOW R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
          DHARWAD BENCH,
          AT: DHARWAD.

   2.     RENUKA
          W/O LAKSHMAN WADDAR,
          AGED 38 YEARS,
          OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURAL LABOUR,
                        2




    RESIDENT OF NARENUR VILLAGE,
    TALUK: BADAMI,
    DISTRICT: BAGALKOT.
                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)

    THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A
(2)  OF   SCHEDULED   CASTES    AND   THE
SCHEDULED     TRIBES   (PREVENTION     OF
ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 R/W 439 OF CR.P.C
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
REJECTION OF REGULAR BAIL IN RESPECT OF
ACCUSED NO.2 IN CRIME NO.84/2021 IN
KERUR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 302 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC
AND SECTION 3(2)(va) OF THE SC AND ST
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT
ACT 2015, BY ITS ORDER DATED 16.08.2021
PASSD BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BAGALKOT IN SPECIAL
CASE NO.77/2021 AND ALLOW THE PRESENT
APPEAL.

    THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                 JUDGMENT

Accused No.2 has filed this appeal

challenging the order dated 16.08.2021 passed

in Spl.C.77/2021, where under the bail

application of the appellant/accused No.2 has

been rejected. Appellant/accused No.2 had

sought bail in Crime No.84/2021 of Kerur

Police Station, registered for the offences

punishable under Section 302 read with Section

34 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter

referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and under

Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SC/ST

(POA) Act,1989', for brevity).

2. The case of the prosecution is that

there was an illicit relationship between the

deceased Lakshman Hanamanth Waddar and

accused No.3 - Renuka. The family members

and other elders had advised the said

Lakshman Waddar to stop the illicit

relationship. In spite of such advice, the

deceased Lakshman did not listen to them and

continued his relationship with the aforesaid

Renuka. It is on 12.06.2021 the deceased

Lakshman Waddar had taken out his herd of

sheep for grazing and he allegedly came near

the agricultural land bearing R.S.No.68/2

belonging to appellant/accused No.2. At that

time, accused No.3 - Renuka was also working

in the said agricultural land. On seeing the

said Renuka, the deceased went near her and

dragged her in spite of the protest made by

her. She somehow escaped from the clutches

of the Lakshman (deceased) and managed to

call the appellant/accused No.2 and her brother

Sanju (accused No.1) from the mobile phone

belonging to one Hanamanath Metagudda (CW-

8). After the said phone call, accused Nos.1

and 2 came to the spot and tied the deceased

to a nearby tree and started to beat him with

untied the deceased and warned him against

his misbehavior with a married woman.

Thereafter, the deceased went near the

boundary of the said land where Holebasappa

Chikkur (CW-4) was standing and at his

request CW-4 took him on his bike to

Government Hospital, Kerur and he succumbed

to the injuries at 08.00 p.m. in the hospital. It

is on the same day respondent No.2 lodged a

complaint, the said complaint came to be

registered in Crime No.84/2021 by Kerur Police

Station for the offence punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 149 of IPC and

Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989.

Thereafter, charge sheet has been filed and the

case came to be registered in Spl.C.77/2021

for the offence punishable under Section 302

read with 34 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(va)

of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989. Appellant-accused

No.2 who was arrested on 13.06.2021 and

remanded to the judicial custody has filed bail

application in Spl.C.77/2021 and the same

came to be rejected by the learned II

Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Bagalkot by order dated 16.08.2021.

Appellant-accused No.2 has challenged the said

order in the present appeal.

3. Heard the arguments of learned

counsel appearing for the appellant and the

learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State. Respondent No.2 is

present personally and submits not to grant

bail to the appellant.

4. The learned counsel for appellant-

accused No.2 would contend that, the only

eyewitness to the incident is CW-4 whose

statement has been recorded by the Police and

also under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., by Judicial

Magistrate. Even though CW-4 in his

statement before the Police has stated the

overt-acts of appellant-accused No.2 and

accused No.1 assaulting the deceased with

stick on his head, hands and body, and accused

No.3 assaulted with hands, but in his

statement recorded under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C., he did not state that he has seen the

accused assaulting the deceased. It is his

submission that as the charge sheet is filed,

the appellant is not required for the custodial

interrogation and that appellant/accused No.2

is aged 62 years and he is a senior citizen and

suffering from severe diabetics. He further

submits that without considering all these

aspects, the learned Sessions Judge rejected

the bail application of the appellant which

requires interference of this Court. With this,

he prayed to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned High Court

Government Pleader would contend that the

offence alleged against the appellant and other

accused is heinous offence punishable with

death or imprisonment for life. He would

assaulted the deceased with sticks and accused

No.3 assaulted with hands and thereby they

committed his murder. He submits that CW-4,

who is the only eyewitness to the incident, in

his statement recorded by the police, has

specifically stated the overt-acts of the

accused persons. He further submits that the

doctor who conducted Post Mortem examination

has noted that the deceased has sustained 14

injuries and the cause of his death is due to

Cardio-Respiratory arrest secondary to

Hypovolaenic Neurogenic shock due to diffuse

cerebral Hemorrhage oedeme rupture of vital

organs and fracture of bones. He further

submits that, two clubs, saree and blood

stained shirt has been recovered at the

instance of accused No.1 under a Mahazar.

The charge sheet material shows prima facie

case against the appellant and other accused.

Considering all these aspects, the learned

Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail

application of the appellant, which does not

require any interference of this Court. With

this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. Having regard to the submissions

made by learned counsel for the appellant and

the learned High Court Government Pleader,

this Court has gone through the charge sheet

records.

7. As per charge sheet, the deceased

Lakshman had an illicit relationship with

accused No.3 and in spite of advice given by

the accused and other elders, the deceased did

not stop and therefore they were angry against

him. On 12.06.2021 the deceased went near

the farm land of the accused and holds hands

of accused No.3 and she enraged by that,

called accused Nos.1 and 2 by making phone

call, who came there and tied the deceased

Lakshman to a tree and assaulted him with

sticks on his head and body, and caused severe

injuries and accused No.3 assaulted him with

hands. The injured Lakshman was taken to

Kerur Government Hospital by CW-4 on his

motor cycle, where he died at about 08.00

p.m. As per the case of the prosecution, the

only eyewitness to the incident is CW-4, who in

his statement recorded by the police has

specifically stated overt-acts of appellant-

accused No.2, accused No.1 and accused No.3

assaulting the deceased and he witnessed the

same. But, in his statement recorded under

Section 164 of Cr.P.C by JMFC, Badami, CW.4

has not said anything regarding he witnessing

the incident, he only stated that he saw the

injured fallen on the ground with injuries and

he took him on his motor cycle to the hospital.

Therefore, as per the statement of CW-4

recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., CW4 is

not an eyewitness for the incident. Appellant-

accused No.2 whether has committed the

alleged acts has to be established during trial.

Appellant-accused No.2 is aged 62 years and it

is submitted that, he is suffering from severe

diabetics. Without considering all these

aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has

rejected the bail application of appellant-

accused No.2 which requires interference by

this Court. The main objection of the

prosecution is that, if the appellant is granted

bail, he will threaten the complainant and

other prosecution witnesses. The said

objection may be met with by imposing

stringent conditions.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the

case and the submissions of the counsel, this

Court is of the view that there are valid

grounds for setting aside the impugned order

and granting bail to appellant/accused No.2.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The impugned

order dated 16.08.2021 passed in

Spl.C.77/2021 by the learned II Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot is hereby

set aside. Consequently, the bail application of

the appellant-accused No.2 stands allowed.

Appellant-accused No.2 is ordered to be

released on bail in Crime No.84/2021 of Kerur

Police Station, subject to the following

conditions:

i) Appellant-accused No.2 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) Appellant-accused No.2 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iii) Appellant-accused No.2 shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate for speedy disposal of the case.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RH/SBS