Dundesh Chandrappa Maradi vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 10013 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
                        BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100254 OF 2022
BETWEEN
    DUNDESH CHANDRAPPA MARADI
    AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
    R/O. KURANIWADI VILLAGE,
    TALUKA HUKKERI,
    DIST. BELAGAVI-591309
                                             ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
     THROUGH YAMAKANAMARADI POLICE STATION
     DIST. BELAGAVI-580011
2.   SMT. LAXMIBAI KEMPANNA BANGARI
     AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
     R/O. GUDAS VILLAGE,
     TALUKA HUKKERI,
     DIST. BELAGAVI-591309
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1)
(R2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED.)
      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14 A(2)
OF SC/ST PREVENTION OF ATROCITY ACT OF CR.PC.,SEEKING TO
GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO. 1 IN SPL
CASE NO. 232/2021 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE BELAGAVI (CRIME NO
140/2021 OF YAMAKANAMARADI POLICE STATION) REGISTERD
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1) (r) 3(1)
(s) 3(2) (v) OF SC/ST PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT AND
UNDER SECTION 66(E) 67(A) OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY
ACT.
                                  2




     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by appellant/accused No.1 under

Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) (herein after for short'

SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989) for granting bail in crime

No.140/2021 (Spl.C.No.232/2021) for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 201, 292, r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code (herein after for short 'IPC') and under

Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA), ACT,1989

and Section 66(E), 67(A) of Information and Technology Act.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for

appellant/accused no.1 and learned HCGP for respondent-

State. Respondent No.2 served, unrepresented.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that mother of

the deceased filed complaint with police on 05.08.2021

alleging that her daughter deceased Shobha fell in love with

petitioner/accused no.1 and married him. They have got a

child from their marriage and deceased was residing in her

matrimonial house. She further alleged in the complaint that

the petitioner being husband and other accused his mother

and sister are used to harass her daughter physically and

mentally and thereafter, panchayath was held. They advised

accused persons to look after his wife properly. Subsequently,

inspite of the same, again accused was continued to harass

her daughter. Further, on 11.08.2021 at 1.30 pm, petitioner

made a phone call to the son of the complainant that

deceased Shobha is missing from his house. She has drunken

alcohol yesterday night and subsequently, she was missing

from house from morning 4 a.m. Thereafter, mother of

deceased and her son went in search of deceased. Dead body

of deceased was found floating in the well in the land of

CW.13. Complaint came to be filed against the appellant and

his family members. She also stated that appellant and his

family members have committed murder of her daughter.

After registering the complaint, police have arrested the

appellant/accused on 12.08.2021 and other accused also

arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Accused persons

filed bail application before III Addl. District and Sessions

Judge, Belagavi. Bail applications of accused nos.2 and 3 are

allowed and bail application of appellant/accused no.1 was

came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court, seeking

regular bail.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that

the appellant is innocent of alleged offence. He has been

falsely implicated in the case. Death of the deceased was

suicidal one. Appellant himself has lodged missing complaint

to the Police, which was registered in Crime No.139/2021 on

11.08.2021 itself. Such being the case, question of

committing the murder does not arise. Investigation

completed. Charge sheet has been filed. Statement of CW.13,

supervisor of the land has been recorded after the arrest of

the appellant. Therefore, the said statement, extra judicial

confession cannot be accepted at this stage, until going for

trial. He is in judicial custody for almost 10 months.

Therefore, prays for granting regular bail.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP seriously objected the

bail application and contended that accused married the

deceased only after she became pregnant. He made her to

drink alcohol and used to take sexual photographs and web

host the same in social media and the same was objected by

the victim. Therefore, he has committed her murder and

thrown her dead body in to a well. Postmortem report reveals

the same. Accused also given extra judicial confession before

CW-13. Photo and video graphs were seized by the Police

from the mobile of the accused goes to show the cause for

murder. Statement of CW-13, Statement recorded under

Section 164 of Cr.P.C recorded by Magistrate reveals the

extra judicial confession made regarding commission of

murder of her wife. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the

appeal.

6. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel

for the parties, I have perused the records.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner married the

deceased after loving her and it is inter caste marriage. They

are having a child from their wed lock. It is not in dispute

that as per complaint, deceased was in the company of

appellant on 10.08.2021 in his house. Deceased was found

missing from the house of accused from morning 4 am.

Appellant/accused himself has lodged missing complaint to

the Police, which is registered in Crime No.131/2021.

Subsequently, mother of the deceased also lodged complaint,

after tracing the dead body which was floating in well in the

land which comes under the supervision of CW-13. The

complainant stated that petitioner was committed murder of

her daughter and he has made disappearance of dead body

by throwing the same in well.

8. The dead body was subject to the postmortem

examination, where the doctor who conducted autopsy has

stated that there was injury on the neck of deceased. Diffuse

blood extravasation is seen in the strap muscles, more on left

side. Thyroid bone is fractured on left side. Fletching of

Palmar and plantar skin is seen peeling of skin is seen at

places, Aquatic animal bite marks are seen over ear lobes,

which suggest that death is due to strangulation and it is a

homicidal death but not suicidal death.

9. That apart investigation paper reveals that CW-13

has stated that the previously appellant approached him and

stated that his wife is missing and she was took alcohol in the

night and thereafter she was missing and subsequently, he

himself stated before CW-13 that he has committed mistake

by strangulating his wife. Extra judicial confession is though

a weak piece of evidence, however, death of the deceased

was occurred when she was in the company of the accused

and the same is one of the strong circumstance that goes

against the appellant. Apart from that death is homicidal one.

It is for the appellant to explain what happened to his wife. It

appears in order to patch up the offence or cause

disappearance of evidence, he has created the story that his

wife has drunken alcohol in the night and missing from house

and filed false missing complaint before police. But her dead

body was found floating in the well situated in the land

supervised by CW.13. That apart Police also seized various

video graphs from the mobile of appellant, where the accused

has made her wife to drink alcohol and used to take her sex

video graphs and used to upload the same to social media. It

clearly goes to show that there are prima facie materials

against appellant for having committed the offence under

Sections 302, 201 of IPC other than the offences under

Information Technology Act. Of-course marriage of

appellant/accused and deceased is love marriage and

deceased belongs to member of Schedule Caste. He is having

sexual affairs with deceased and hence, he is compelled to

marry deceased.

10. Considering the facts that there are prima facie

materials on record for having committed murder of his wife

but tried to show that it was suicide. Such being the case

appellant is not entitled for bail as prayed for.

Hence, appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HMB