Karnataka High Court
Swami T K vs State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2022
Bench: K.S.Mudagal
1
Crl.A.No.1341/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE K S MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1341/2021
BETWEEN:
SWAMI.T.K
S/O KUMARA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT THIRUMALAPURA VILLAGE
CHINNAKURALI HOBLI
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA - 514 343. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.MOHAN C, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PANDAVAPURA POLICE STATION
MANDYA DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SMT.MAHADEVAMMA
W/O H.MAHADEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O NANJEGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: SHANKAR H.S.,HCGP, FOR R-1
VIDE ORDER DTD.01.02.2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-2
IS HELD SUFFICIENT, R-2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
2
Crl.A.No.1341/2021
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 31.05.2021 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.29/2021 ON
THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MANDYA AND
RELEASE THEAPPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL IN
CR.NO.292/2020 (SPL.C.NO.29/2021) FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 201, 498A,504 READ WITH
34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(R),3(1)(S), 3(2)(VA) OF SC/ST
(POA) AMENDMENT ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the rejection of his bail application, accused
No.1 in Crime No.292/2020 of Pandavapura Police Station has
preferred the above appeal.
2. Appellant is accused No.1 and his father is accused
No.2 in Crime No.292/2020 of Pandavapura Police Station.
Both of them are charge sheeted in the said case for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 498-A, 504, 506
read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and
3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On taking cognizance, the
Crl.A.No.1341/2021
said case is pending before V Additional District Judge, Mandya
in Special Case No.29/2021.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The appellant and victim - Meghashri loved each other
and married in 2014 at Sri Ramanjaneya temple, Hosakerehalli,
Bengaluru. Said marriage was not attended by families of both
of them. C.W.1 is the mother of Meghashri. After marriage,
Meghashri and appellant started living together separately.
Two months after marriage, appellant abandoned Meghashri
and joined his parents. When she approached them and
questioned his conduct, accused No.2 abused her with
reference to her caste. Thereafter on her insistence, appellant
and Meghashri lived together in the rented house of
Smt.Savitramma - C.W.8 for some time. Then, he shifted to
Bengaluru and lived in a rented house of Nagaraj - C.W.11.
Since the appellant subjected Meghashri to cruelty, she had
filed a complaint in Metagalli Police Station, Mysuru. When
Meghashri started insisting the appellant to get their marriage
registered, he took her to Pandavapura and from there to
Srirangapatna in the guise of registration of marriage. On
22.03.2015 they stayed at Manjunatha Lodge, Srirangapatna.
Crl.A.No.1341/2021
On 22.03.2015 at 9.00 p.m., the appellant in order to get rid of
her, took her to V.C.Nala near Banaghatta Gate, drowned her
into the water and committed her murder.
4. The appellant is in judicial custody since
09.11.2020. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected
his bail application on the ground that there is sufficient
material to believe that accused has committed murder.
Aggrieved by the said order, above appeal is filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that case
is based on circumstantial evidence and there is delay of 6
years in filing the complaint. He submits that appellant is
ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed. He
further submits that this Court has granted anticipatory bail to
accused No.2. Therefore, on the ground of parity, appellant is
entitled for bail.
6. Learned HCGP opposes the petition on the ground
that there is sufficient material to show appellant's involvement
in the crime. He further submits that allegations of committing
the murder are against the appellant and therefore, parity does
not apply.
Crl.A.No.1341/2021
7. As per the charge sheet records, accused No.2
joined the appellant only in abusing the victim with reference to
the caste and declined to accept her in his family. The
allegations of committing the murder are only against the
present appellant. Therefore, the ground of parity does not
apply.
8. It is no doubt true that case is based on
circumstantial evidence. However, there is sufficient material
in the charge sheet to show that appellant and victim lived
together for about four years as husband and wife. It is no
doubt true that till filing of the charge sheet, dead body was
not traced. However, conduct of the appellant also matters.
The victim lived with him. He has to explain where she went
and if she is missing, what efforts he did to trace her. He has
neither informed the police nor parents of the victim about her
missing. Order of the trial Court reveals that Investigating
Officer reported to the trial Court that C.W.1 identified the
skeleton as that of her daughter and samples were sent for
DNA examination.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the trial Court is
justified in accepting that there are reasonable grounds to
believe the involvement of the appellant. This Court does not
Crl.A.No.1341/2021
find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*sp
