Shri. Rohit S/O Nagappa Vaddar vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 5011 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 29 T H DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
                         BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100289 OF 2021

   BETWEEN:

   SHRI. ROHIT S/O NAGAPPA VADDAR
   AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
   R/O. DURGAMATA COLONY, GANESHPUR,
   BELAGAVI, TALUK AND DIST. BELAGAVI,
   PIN-590001
                                    ...APPELLANT
   (BY SRI S. M.MUCHHANDI, ADV.)

   AND:

   1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
          THE POLICE INSPECTOR RURAL
          POLICE STATION BELAGAVI
          PIN-590001.
          REPRESENTED BY ITS
          STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT BUILDING,
          HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
          AT. DHARWAD BENCH, PIN-580011.

   2.     SHRI. RAMACHANDRAPPA
          S/O. MALLAPPA KAMBLE
                            2




      R/O. SULAGA, TALUK AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
      PIN-590005.
                              ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A
(2) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT 1989, SEEKING TO
ALLOW     THE   APPEAL   FILED    BY   THIS
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO. 4, BY SETTING
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE III ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT BELAGAVI IN
CRL.MISC.NO.737/2021    DATED    26.08.2021
AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE
CRL.MISC.NO.737/2021 AND FURTHER GRANT
REGULAR BAIL TO THIS APPELLANT (ACCUSED
NO.4) IN SPL.CASE.NO. 200/2020 (BELAGAVI
RURAL P.S. CRIME NO.115/2020 U/S 143,
120(B), 302 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION
3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT 1989 AND
AMENDED ACT 2015, ON THE FILE OF III ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT BELAGAVI.

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

                      JUDGMENT

Accused No.4 has filed this appeal challenging

the order dated 26.08.2021 passed in Criminal

Miscellaneous No.737/2021 by the learned III

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi,

whereunder the bail petition of the appellant came to

be dismissed. The appellant/accused No.4 has sought

bail in Crime No.115/2020 of Belagavi Rural Police

Station registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 120B, 302 read with Section 149 of

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC',

for brevity) and Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act 1989 pending in Special Case

No.200/2020 on the file of III Additional District and

Sessions Court, Belagavi.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that there

was an illicit relationship between accused No.1-

kalpana and complainant's son-in-law namely

Gangappa Prashant Hulamani (CW.9). About 6

months prior to the date of the incident, Gangappa

married the daughter of complainant by name Rohini.

Hence, accused No.1 had a grouse against Rohini, as

such, she conspired with accused Nos.4 and 5 to

commit the murder of Rohini and to meet the

expenses, she gave a sum of Rs.20,000/- to accused

Nos.4 and 5. On 26.09.2020 at about 4.00 p.m.,

when the deceased Rohini and her friend deceased

Rajashri were walking by the side of Brahmaling

Temple Road, in Machhe village, accused Nos.4 and 5

came on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-

02/EA-1780 and stabbed both the deceased Rohini

and Rajashri on abdomen, chest and other parts of

the body and committed double murder. The

appellant-accused No.4 has been arrested on

01.10.2020 and remanded to judicial custody. The

appellant-accused No.4 filed Crl.Misc. No.737/2021

seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by III

Addl. District and Sessions and Special Judge,

Belagavi, by order dated 26.08.2021. Therefore,

appellant-accused No.4 has filed the present appeal

challenging the said order dated 26.08.2021.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel

appearing for appellant-accused No.4, the learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent

No.1-State and respondent No.2-complainant who is

personally present.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel

appearing for appellant-accused No.4 that the

appellant is innocent, has not committed any offence

as alleged and he has been falsely implicated in this

case. A complaint has been registered against two

unknown persons. Subsequently, charge sheet has

been filed against the appellant-accused No.4 and

accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5. In the charge sheet, CWs-

2 to 5 have been shown as eye witnesses to the

incident, who stated that they have gone to the well

situated near spot for swimming and they saw the

incident, but in the spot sketch, no well is shown.

CWs-2 to 5 in their statements have stated that, two

unknown persons have assaulted the deceased-Rohini

and Rajashri. In their further statements, CWs-2 to 5

have identified accused Nos.4 and 5 when they were

shown in Police Station to them. The Investigating

Officer has not made any efforts to conduct Test

Identification Parade. The knife said has been used to

assault the deceased-Rohini and Rajashari has been

recovered at the instance of accused No.4. Except

clothes and motorcycle, nothing has been seized at

the instance of the appellant-accused No.4. Charge

sheet has been filed and therefore the appellant-

accused No.4 is not required for custodial

interrogation. The learned Sessions Judge, without

considering all these aspects, has rejected the bail

petition of the appellant-accused No.4, which requires

interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to

allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader would contended that the offence alleged

against the appellant-accused No.4 and accused No.5

is commission of double murder, which is heinous

offence punishable with death or imprisonment for

life. The case involves death of two women namely

Rohini and Rajashri. The appellant-accused No.4 and

accused No.5, who have been hired by accused No.1

through accused Nos.2 and 3 have committed murder

of deceased Rohini and deceased Rajashri. The knife

and blood stained clothes have been recovered at the

instance of accused No.5 and blood stained clothes

and motorcycle have been recovered at the instance

of the appellant-accused No.4. The CWs-2 to 5, who

are the eyewitnesses to the incident, have identified

the appellant-accused No.4 and accused No.5, stating

that they have assaulted the deceased Rohini and

Rajashri with knife and committed their murder. The

doctor who conducted postmortem examination over

the dead body of the deceased-Rohini has noted 12

injuries and stated that death is due to shock as a

result of cut throat injury sustained. The doctor, who

conducted postmortem examination over the dead

body of the deceased-Rajashri, has noted 15 injuries

and stated that death is due to shock and hemorrhage

as a result of stab injuries sustained. The charge

sheet material shows prima facie case against

appellant-accused No.4 and if he is granted bail, he

will threaten the complainant and other prosecution

witnesses and flee from justice. Considering all these

aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly

rejected the bail petition of the appellant-accused

No.4 and therefore it does call for any interference.

With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. The respondent No.2 - complainant, who is

present before the Court, prays not to grant bail to

the appellant-accused No.4.

7. Having regard to the submission made by

the learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.4,

the learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State and the submission of

respondent No.2-complainant, this Court has gone

through the charge sheet records and the impugned

order.

8. The charge sheet material discloses that

accused No.1 had grouse against the deceased-Rohini,

as such she informed the matter to accused Nos.2 and

3 and with the help of accused No.2, secured accused

Nos.4 and 5 and thereafter on 24.09.2020 and

25.09.2020, in the house of accused No.1, all the

accused conspired together and accused No.1 gave

Rs.20,000/- to accused Nos.4 and 5 to execute the

plan. As such accused Nos.4 and 5 traveled on

motorcycle of accused No.3 on 26.09.2020 at about

4.00 p.m. to commit the murder of, both, Rohini as

well as her friend Rajashri. CWs-2 to 5, who are eye

witnesses to the incident, in their statements have

stated that two persons, who came on bike, assaulted

the deceased-Rohini and Rajashri with knife and

committed double murder. Subsequently, CWs-2 to 5

identified accused Nos.4 and 5 in the Police Station

when they were shown to them. The blood stained

knife and blood stained clothes have been recovered

at the instance of accused No.5. The blood stained

clothes and the bike, used for the offence have been

recovered at the instance of appellant-accused No.4.

9. On looking to the entire charge sheet

materials, there is prima facie case against the

appellant-accused No.4 and accused No.5 of commissi

on of double murder of Rohini and Rajashri. The

Sessions Court, considering all these aspects has

rightly rejected the bail petition of the appellant-

accused No.4. There are no grounds to interfere with

the order passed by the Sessions Court.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SMM & Kmv