Srikanth M vs The State Of Karnataka By
2022 Latest Caselaw 11152 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 27 T H DAY OF JULY, 2022

                        BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

     CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1251 OF 2022 c/w

        CRIMINAL APPEAL No.855 OF 2022


IN CR IMINAL APPEAL No.1251 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

David
S/o Chinniah
Aged about 31 years
R/o. Lakshmipura
Near Halo Brick Factory
Abbigere, Vidyaranyapura Post
Beng aluru-560 057.
                                            ...App ellant
(By Sri Harish N.R., Ad vocate)


AND:

1.   The State of Karnataka
     By Mad anayakanahalli Police Station
     Beng aluru, Rep resented by its
     State Pub lic Prosecutor
     Hig h Court Build ings
     Bang alore-560 001.

2.   Sri Jayanna G
     S/o Late Gurumurthapp a
     Aged about 49 years
     Owner of water tanker
     R/o. Ashok Kheni Layout
     Madavara Villag e
                              :: 2 ::


     Dasanap ura Hob ali
     Beng aluru-560 073.
                                                    ...Respondents

(By Sri K. Nag eshwarapp a, HCGP, for R1;
 Smt. C.Saraswathi, Advocate for
 Sri B.S. Sachin, Advocate for R2)



     This    Criminal    Appeal     is   filed     under   Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside the
order p assed by the learned             II Addl. District and
Sessions     Judge    and   Sp l.   Judge,       Beng aluru   Rural
District, Beng aluru in      Crl. Misc.      No.31/2022       dated
02.02.2022 and grant b ail to the appellant in Cr.
No.427/2021 registered b y respondent no.1 for the
offence     p/u/s    143,147,148,302,109,120B,150              read
with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
(POA) Act p resently pending on the file of II Addl.
District and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge, Beng aluru
Rural District, Beng aluru in Spl.C. No.903/2021.


IN CR IMINAL APPEAL No.855 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Srikanth M
S/o Muniraju K
Aged about 28 years
R/at No.677, 2 n d Cross
Jalahalli Cross
Chokkasandra
Bang alore-560 057.
                                                    ...App ellant
(By Sri K. Lakshmi Kanth, Advocate)
                               :: 3 ::


AND:

1.    The State of Karnataka by
      Madanayakanahalli Police Station
      Bang alore Rural District
      Rep by its Pub lic Prosecutor
      Hig h Court Build ing
      Bang alore-01.

2.    Sri Jayanna G
      S/o Late Gurumurthapp a
      Aged about 48 years
      Water tank owner
      R/at Ashok Kheni Layout
      Opp. Chakkula Thamma Temple
      Madavara Villag e
      Dasanap ura Hob li
      Bang alore Rural District
      Pin-560 057.
                                         ...Respondents
(By Sri K. Nag eshwarapp a, HCGP, for R1;
 Smt. C. Saraswathi, Advocate for
 Sri B.S. Sachin, Advocate for R2)



      This   Criminal   Appeal      is   filed   under        Section
14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside the
order    dated     27.10.2021       p assed      in    Crl.     Misc.
No.1513/2021 by the learned VII Additional District
and     Sessions     Judge,     Beng aluru       Rural     District,
Beng aluru and release the appellant on bail for the
offence p/u/s 143,147,148,341,302,109,120B,201,150
read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (POA)        Act in Cr. No.427/2021             in Sp l. S.C.
No.903/2021, p ending on the file of Additional Civil
Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bengaluru Rural District, Beng aluru.
                           :: 4 ::


     These Criminal Appeals coming on for orders this
day, the Court delivered the following:



                     JUDGMENT

These two appeals filed under section 14(A)

of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act are disposed of by a

common judgment as they arise from Crime No.

0427/2021 registered by Madanayakanahally Police

Station. The appellant in Criminal Appeal

1251/2022 is accused No.1 and the appellant in

Criminal Appeal 855/2022 is accused No.2.

2. The incident alleged is that on 5.9.2021,

Kiran Kumar, the son of the first informant namely

Jayanna was killed by accused 2 and 3. The

motive behind the incident was that the deceased

Kiran Kumar had illicit relationship with accused

No.4. Then accused No.4 developed contact with

accused No.1. The deceased coming to know

about the relationship between accused No.1 and 4 :: 5 ::

conspired for eliminating Kiran Kumar which

resulted in the incident to take place on 5.9.2021

at about 7.45 AM. The police have now filed

charge sheet for the offences under sections 143,

147, 148, 341, 302, 109, 120B, 201, 150 of IPC

and section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act read with

section 149 IPC. The Special Court by orders

dated 2.2.2022 and 27.10.2021 rejected the bail

applications of the first and second accused

respectively. Hence, these two appeals.

3. I have heard Sri Harish N.R, learned

counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.1251/2022, Sri

K.Lakshmi Kanth, learned counsel for the appellant

in Crl.A.855/2022, Sri A.Nageshwarappa, learned

HCGP and, Smt. C.Saraswathi for respondent No.2

in both the appeals.

4. Sri Harish N.R submitted that if the entire

charge sheet is perused, the involvement of the :: 6 ::

first accused is apparently not forthcoming. The

incident is said to have taken place on 5.9.2021,

but the death occurred on the next day. In this

view, an offence under section 302 IPC should not

have been invoked in the charge sheet. According

to the charge sheet, the overt acts are attributed

to accused 2 and 3, nowhere accused No.1 is in

picture. The FIR shows that the mother of the eye

witness was not present at the place of incident,

but her statement indicates that she is an eye

witness. This itself is sufficient to draw an

inference that charge sheet is manipulated to

falsely implicate accused No.1. There were civil

disputes between the family of the deceased and

the fourth accused and this was made use of for

fixing accused No.1. Looked from any angle,

prima facie materials against accused No.1 are not

forthcoming and hence the Special Court should

have granted bail to him. In this view, this appeal :: 7 ::

deserves to be allowed and accused No.1,

admitted to bail.

5. Sri Lakshmi Kanth argued that one of the

eye witnesses namely Salauddin is known to the

father of the deceased. If really he was an eye

witness, when the father and mother of the

deceased came to the place of incident, he could

have told them that he saw two persons inflicting

injuries to their son. The statement of Salauddin

is recorded on 23.9.2021 and the statement of

another witness Umashankar was recorded on

20.9.2021. There is delay in recording their

statements. Therefore inference can be drawn

that actually they are not eye witnesses and they

have been planted to be eye witnesses. He also

argued the deceased was involved in too many

criminal cases, somebody might have killed him

and accused No.2 has been wrongly implicated.

:: 8 ::

6. Smt. Saraswathi argued that civil dispute

has nothing to do with the incident of killing Kiran

Kumar. The statements of two eye witnesses

prima facie establish that Kiran Kumar was killed

by accused 2 and 3 at the instance of accused 1

and 4. Blood stained clothes were recovered.

Therefore there is ample material indicating the

involvement of accused 1 and 2 and hence the

appeals should be dismissed.

7. I have perused the charge sheet. It

appears that the police have filed the charge sheet

for the offence under the provisions of SC/ST

(POA) Act merely for the reason that the deceased

was a Bhovi by caste. But it is to be noted here

that as per the charge sheet accused 1 and 4 also

belong to Scheduled Caste. In this view, invoking

the offence under section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA)

Act is not proper. The charge sheet clearly

discloses that the alleged illicit relationship :: 9 ::

between accused No.1 and 4 was the reason for

the incident to take place. Therefore it was not a

caste based attack.

8. Examined whether there are prima facie

materials indicating the involvement of the

appellants, it may be stated that the statements

given by Umashankar and Salauddin show that

they saw the incident. Their statements disclose

that at about 7.45 AM on 5.9.2021, they saw one

person inflicting injuries with a knife to the person

sitting in the driver seat of the car and thereafter

both of them left that place riding their blue colour

motor cycle. They also saw a woman by name

Savitha wife of Jayanna coming to that place.

Umashankar has stated that Salauddin came to

that place immediately. Statement of Salauddin

indicates that the woman who came to that place

identified the deceased to be her son and she

immediately went to her house and brought her :: 10 ::

husband. These two witnesses identified accused

2 and 3 in the police station. The statement of the

wife of the deceased shows that there was illicit

relationship between her husband and accused

No.4. It is true that in the FIR it is written that

the mother of the deceased was inside the house

when the deceased screamed. But in her

statement she is projected to be an eye witness.

Whether she is an eye witness or not becomes

clear only when she is subjected to cross-

examination. Likewise, the delay in recording the

statement of the eye-witnesses is a matter of

appreciation of evidence. Sri Lakshmi Kanth

argued that if really Salauddin was an eye witness,

he could have disclosed the entire incident

immediately to the father of the deceased, but he

did not and therefore whether he is an eye witness

or not does not become clear. Even this point of

argument can be appreciated after recording

evidence. At the time of deciding the bail :: 11 ::

application, it is not permitted to examine the

prosecution case very minutely. Therefore I am of

the opinion that the charge sheet clearly shows

prima facie materials being available as regards

involvement of the appellants.

9. Because the death occurred on the next

day, whether the offence under section 302 IPC is

attracted or not has to be decided by the trial

court after recording evidence. At this stage,

motive for the incident is forthcoming. The nature

of injuries sustained by the deceased indicate that

they were sufficient enough to cause death in the

ordinary course. Therefore this line of argument

cannot be appreciated.

10. So far as accused No.1 is concerned, he

has a track of criminal background.

:: 12 ::

11. In the result, I do not find any grounds

to interfere with the impugned orders. Hence

appeals are dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE ckl/-