Shivanagouda S/O Basappa Patil vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 8248 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100184 OF 2022

BETWEEN
SHIVANAGOUDA S/O BASAPPA PATIL
AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GOSABAL VILLAGE,
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI
                                                 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.M B GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)

AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
   BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
   DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD
   THROUGH RAIBAG P.S.

2. SMT. SAVITA ARJUN MEGADI
   AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
   R/O. BENDAWAD VILLAGE,
   TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591317
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R.1)
(RESPONDENT NO.2- SERVED)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT, SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.6
ON BAIL, IN RAIBAG P.S.CR.NO.296/2021, FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES U/SEC. 143, 144, 147, 148, 120(B), 302, 341, 363, 201
R/W. 149 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 3(2)(V), 3(2)(V-A) OF SC/ST (PA),
ACT, ON THE FILE OF III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BELAGAVI.
                                   2




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


                           JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by appellant/accused No.6 under

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

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

SC/ST(POA) Act) for granting bail in crime No.296/2021 of

Raibagh for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144,

147, 148, 120(B), 302, 341, 363, 201 R/W. 149 of Indian

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

3(2)(V), 3(2)(V-A) OF SC/ST (POA), Act.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for

appellant/accused no.6 and learned HCGP for respondent-

State. Respondent No.2 served, unrepresented.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on

03.12.2021 kidnap complaint is given by wife of deceased

Smt.Savita alleging that her husband Arjun Megade used to

collect milk from other villages. He went for collecting milk

and subsequently, she received phone call from her brother

that her husband deceased Arjun did not go for collecting milk

and the said person informed her brother that he telephoned

to the deceased, at that time some other took telephone and

told that telephone is lying in his land and some persons

thrown this phone near his land. He saw some four persons

attacked one person and abducted him in their car. Therefore,

police registered kidnap case in Crime No.296/2021 against

four unknown persons and issued FIR. Subsequently, a

missing notification was made by police and the dead body

was said to be found in the Ghataprabha canal on

04.12.2021. Post mortem was conducted and death was

declared as homicidal death. Subsequently, investigation took

place and accused nos.1 to 5 were arrested. On their

voluntary statement, police have arrested present

appellant/accused no.6 and it was revealed that the deceased

had illicit intimacy with the wife of accused no.1 and one day

accused no.1 found deceased with compromising position with

second wife of accused no.1. Therefore, he changed his

house. Inspite of the same, deceased used to follow and meet

the wife of accused no.1. Therefore, accused no.1 contacted

other accused persons. They hatched the conspiracy to

commit murder of deceased Argun Megade and accordingly,

they conspired to commit murder of accused no.3. They find

out the place, watched the movements of deceased and

decided to commit murder near the land of Desai and they

also hatched conspiracy along with accused No.6 and they got

help from him to dispose of the body on the other side of the

Ghataprabha canal and accused no.6 agreed to watch the

place and to see that public should not come to that place.

Accordingly, on 03.12.2021, when the deceased was going to

collect the milk, accused no.3 informed the movements of the

deceased to accused no.1. Accused no.1 purchased second

hand vehicle and along with accused nos.1 to 5 abducted the

deceased and committed the murder. They took dead body in

the car and as per their plan, they took dead body near

Ghataprabha canal in the midnight. Accused no.6/present

appellant is present there and he is watching the movements

of the people and when nobody is there they dumped the

dead body in the other side of the ghataprabha canal.

Accused no.1 cleaned his car with water with the help of

accused no.6 and caused disappearance of the evidence.

After arrest, they remanded to judicial custody. Appellant

along with other accused approached Sessions Court for bail.

Bail petition of present appellant came to be rejected. Hence,

he is before this Court, seeking anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that

appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case by

Police on the voluntary statement of co-accused. Absolutely,

there is no evidence against this appellant to show that he

has helped the other accused to commit murder. Role of this

appellant is only to stand on the place and to watch that

public are coming or not. Except that, he was not having any

knowledge about commission of murder and he was not

specifically assaulted the deceased. Therefore, the alleged

offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and also

offence punishable under sections of SC/ST (POA) Act are not

attracted against the present appellant. He is in judicial

custody almost for six months. He is ready to abide by the

conditions imposed by the Court. With this, he prays for grant

of bail to the appellant.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP objected for grant of

bail and contended that this appellant also conspired with the

co-accused persons in committing the murder and is having

knowledge about accused nos.1 to 5 are going to commit

murder of Arjun Megade and bring dead body of deceased for

disbursement near Ghataprabha canal for dumping body and

thereafter he helped accused no.1 for washing the car and for

causing disappearance of evidence. If he is released on bail,

he may abscond and may not be available for trial. Hence,

prays to reject the bail application.

6. Having heard the arguments, I have perused the

records.

7. The point that arise for my consideration is -

Whether the appellant has made out a ground for grant of bail?

8. On perusal of the records, especially the charge

sheet material and FIR which reveals that complaint has been

filed by the wife of the deceased against four unknown

persons under Section 323, 341, 363 r/w 34 of IPC.

Investigating records reveals that deceased went for

collecting milk on 03.12.2021 but he did not returned home.

Her brother informed her that he came to know from one

Sangmesh, one of his relative that her husband did not went

for collecting milk and on telephone to him, one unknown

person received phone and told him that some four unknown

persons abducted him in their car by throwing his mobile in

nearby land. Thereafter, complaint came to be registered.

Police during investigation arrested the accused persons and

remanded to judicial custody. During investigation, on

04.12.2021 dead body of the deceased traced in ghataprabha

canal. After conducting post mortem, it came to know that

death is homicidal death. Subsequently, during investigation,

it came to know about the back story that accused no.1's

second wife is having elicit relationship with the deceased and

both have caught red hand once when they are in

compromising position. Thereafter, accused no.1 changed his

house. Then also deceased continued his relationship with

her. Hence, accused no.1 decided to commit murder of

deceased with the help of accused nos.2 to 5. He has also

taken the help of accused no.6 in disposing the dead body. As

per their plan, on 03.12.2021, accused nos.1 to 5 commit the

murder of deceased Arjun and with the help of accused no.6,

they disposed the dead body in other side of Ghataprabha

canal and by washing the car with water, caused

disappearance of evidence. Of-course, this appellant helped

for disposal of the dead body of the deceased in ghataprabha

canal but that does not mean that he has no role in

commission of murder, he has not participated in hatching the

conspiracy for committing murder. Of course, in the first

round of conspiracy, he was not there, but on the second

round of conspiracy, he assisted the accused persons to

dispose the dead body of deceased. Hence, this appellant has

also joined them and is having knowledge that the accused

persons are committing murder of the deceased and bringing

the body for disposal in the canal. He watched near

ghataprabha canal and helped them in dispose of the body in

canal without the knowledge of other persons. Therefore, it

cannot be ruled out that Section 120B and Section 201 of IPC

were attracted against this appellant. It cannot be said that

he was not having knowledge that deceased is belonging to

SC/ST community and SC/ST(POA) act attracts against this

appellant. Though, the learned counsel for appellant

contended that absolutely, there is no material to show that

he was not at all know about the murder, cannot be accepted.

With pre-plan they have identified the place of murder, watch

the movements, committed murder and disposed the dead

body. They purchased second hand car for commission of

murder. With plan they executed the murder. All these things

are very well known to the accused no.6.

9. Therefore, I am of the view that appellant also

participated in conspiring and committing the murder of Arjun

Megade, though, he was not actually assaulted the deceased.

If the appellant is released on bail, definitely, there are

chances of tampering witnesses and helping other accused

and threatening prosecution witnesses are not ruled out.

Therefore, I do not find any error in dismissing the bail

application of appellant/accused no.6 by the trial Court.

Hence, appeal filed by the appellant/accused no.6 is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HMB