Shri Ramesh Alias Rama Bhimashi ... vs The State Of Karnataka By
2022 Latest Caselaw 12676 Kant

                              -1-




                                    CRL.A No. 100388 of 2022




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                           BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100388 OF 2022 (U/S 14 A(2) of SC
                         and ST ACT-)
BETWEEN:


      SHRI RAMESH ALIAS RAMA BHIMASHI WAGHMODE
      AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O. VIDYANAGAR, KONNUR- 591231
      TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI



                                                   ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHARAD M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
      STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
      AT. DHARWAD
      THROUGH GOKAK RURAL POLICE STATION

2.    BHIMSHI YAMNAPPA JATNI
      AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
      R/O. KONNUR - 591231
      TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI



                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
                                -2-




                                     CRL.A No. 100388 of 2022



        THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST
(POA) ACT, 1989, SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET
ASIDE      THE    ORDER    DATED     02.06.2022   PASSED        IN
CRL.MISC.NO.598/2022 BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI (SPECIAL COURT TO TRY THE OFFENCE
UNDER POCSO ACT, 2012 AND ATROCITIES ON THE MEMBER OF SC
AND ST AND TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 ON BAIL
IN CRIME NO.221/2021 REGISTERED BY GOKAK RURAL POLICE
STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, GOKAK FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 302, 201,
120(B) R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3(2) (v) OF SC AND ST
PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES AMENDMENT ACT 2015.

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


                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the accused No.3, challenging

the order dated 02.06.2022 passed in Criminal Misc.

No.598/2022, rejecting the bail petition of this

appellant/accused No.3 sought in Crime No.221/2021 of

Gokak Rural Police Station, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B), read with

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of

CRL.A No. 100388 of 2022

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

       2.   Heard     the       learned         counsel        for    the

appellant/accused     No.3      and       learned       HCGP    for   the

respondent No.1-State.          In spite of service of notice,

respondent     No.2      has    remained          absent       and    un-

represented.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, one Bhimshi

Jatni, the father of the deceased Hanamant filed a

complaint on 27.12.2021, stating that, on 27.12.2021 his

son Hanamant went to the land of one Laxman Palled and

did not return and even on calling to his mobile number,

he did not respond. Therefore, he went to search him and

he found the dead body of his son and filed complaint to

the police against unknown persons. The police initially

registered the case for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of IPC. During the investigation, the police

arrested the accused persons on 04.02.2022 and they

have been remanded to the judicial custody. The

CRL.A No. 100388 of 2022

appellant/accused No.3 filed Criminal Misc. No.598/2022

seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by the III

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, by order

dated 02.06.2022. The appellant/accused No.3 has

challenged the said order in the instant appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would

contend that, the appellant is innocent and has not

committed any offence as alleged. Absolutely there is no

material on record to show that, this appellant conspired

with the other accused for committing the murder of the

deceased. The case is based on the circumstantial

evidence. There are no serious overt acts alleged against

this appellant/accused No.3. There is no motive for this

appellant/accused No.3 to commit the murder of the

deceased Hanamant. The serious overt acts are alleged

against the accused No.1. The investigation is completed

and the charge-sheet is filed. The appellant/accused No.3

is not required for custodial interrogation. Without

considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge

CRL.A No. 100388 of 2022

has passed the impugned order which requires

interference by this Court.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that,

there are two witnesses who have seen the accused with

the company of the deceased. C.W.13 has categorically

stated that the accused No.2 telephoned him and told to

give the phone to accused No.3 and thereafter they both

spoken something. Later accused No.3 asked C.W.13 that

where is the deceased Hanamant and he replied that the

deceased has gone to start the water pump. Thereafter,

the accused No.3 after getting intimation about the

deceased went to the place and thereafter C.W.13 went to

his house. Within one hour he came to know that

Hanamant is dead. It is his further submission that, the

accused No.1 was seen by C.W.13 when he was going

towards the deceased. C.W.13 further stated that, the

deceased was talking with wives of the accused Nos.2 and

3 leniently. Therefore, the accused Nos.2 and 3 hatched

conspiracy with accused No.1 to commit the murder of the

CRL.A No. 100388 of 2022

deceased and sent accused No.1 to commit the murder of

the deceased. It is his further submission that, the mobile

networks of the accused Nos.1 to 3 were near the spot

and the phone tower location clearly reveals the

conspiracy and commission of the offence. The said

statement of C.W.13 has also been recorded under Section

164 of Cr.P.C. The Doctor who conducted the postmortem

examination over the dead body of the deceased has

noted two injuries over the dead body. Considering all

these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly

rejected the bail petition of this appellant/accused No.3

which does not call for any interference by this Court. With

this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. Having head the learned counsel for the

appellant/accused No.3 and the learned HCGP for the

respondent No.1-State, this Court has gone through the

charge-sheet records and the impugned order.

7. It is undisputed fact that, the deceased

Hanamant was found dead in the land of one Shankar

CRL.A No. 100388 of 2022

Gurav in between the sugarcane crop. The postmortem

report reveals that there were multiple injuries and the

injury on the neck is the cause for the death. Further the

case of the prosecution is that the deceased was said to be

taunting the wife of the accused No.1 and he was leniently

speaking with the wives of accused Nos.2 and 3.

Therefore, the accused Nos.2 and 3 conspired to commit

the murder of the deceased and accordingly engaged the

accused No.1 to commit the murder and stated that, they

will look after the expenditure of the Court proceedings.

Thereafter, on 27.12.2021 when the deceased went to the

land, the accused No.1 came with sickle and committed

the murder. One of the witnesses has seen the accused

No.1 holding the weapon and standing near a tree and

also the accused No.1 speaking with him and he went

towards the deceased, where he was working. C.W.13 the

owner of the land where the deceased and his father were

working also stated that accused No.2 telephoned him in

order to talk to accused No.3 and therefore, he gave

CRL.A No. 100388 of 2022

phone to accused No.3 and both have spoken something

and thereafter, the accused No.3 went towards the land

where the deceased was working on his motorcycle.

C.W.13 thereafter went to his house and thereafter, after

some time he came to know about the death of the

deceased. These witnesses have clearly stated about the

presence of the accused Nos.1 and 3 in the spot and

telephone call by the accused No.2. After the arrest of the

accused persons, the police have recovered the sickle at

their instance. The call detail records also reveal the

presence of the accused persons at the spot and

conversation between the accused Nos.1 to 3 at the time

of the incident which prima-facie shows that there is

abundant material placed to show that the accused

persons hatched conspiracy and committed murder of the

deceased. On looking to the entire charge-sheet material,

there is a prima-facie case against the appellant/accused

No.3 and other accused for the offences alleged against

them. If the appellant/accused No.3 is granted bail, there

CRL.A No. 100388 of 2022

are chances of he threatening the complainant and other

prosecution witnesses. Considering all these aspects the

learned Sessions Judge has rightly passed the impugned

order rejecting the bail petition of the appellant/accused

No.3. There are no grounds to set aside the said order and

grant bail to this accused No.3. Accordingly, the appeal is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SVH