Ravikumar @ Ravigunda @ Ravi vs State Of Karnataka By K. P. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11872 Kant

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 15 T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
                             NO . 1267 OF 2022
BETWEEN:

Ravikumar @ Ravigunda @ Ravi
S/o Late Selvaraj
Aged about 26 years
Residing at No.K-51/B
13 t h Cross, KEB Office Side
L.N.Pura, Near Bandireddy Circle
Sriramapura, Bangalore-06.
                                                 ...Appellant
(By Sri Lakshmikanth K., Advocate)

AND:

1.     State of Karnataka by
       K.P. Agrahara P.S
       Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor
       High Court Building
       Bangalore-01

2.     Pritham K.
       S/o R. Kumar
       Aged about 28 years
       Residing at No.67
       Near Ragavendra School
       4 t h Main, 8 t h Cross
       N.R. Garden, Cholarapalya
       Bengaluru-560023
                                             ...Respondents
(By Sri K. Rahul Rai, HCGP for R1;
    R2 - served)
                                  :: 2 ::


      This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of
SC/ST (POA) Act read with Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to
set   aside    the   order      dated      01.07.2022    in        Crl.Misc.
No.5961/2022 passed by the learned LXX Addl. City Civil
and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge at Bengaluru and etc,.

      This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission this
day, the Court delivered the following:

                                JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act ['SC/ST Act' for short], challenging the

correctness of the order dated 01.07.2022 passed by

the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and

Special Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.5961/2022.

The appellant is accused No.1. He applied for

anticipatory bail in relation to FIR in Crime

No.160/2021 for the offences punishable under

Sections 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC

and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

After the death of the injured, Section 302 of IPC was :: 3 ::

invoked. Since the court below rejected his application,

this appeal has been preferred.

2. Heard Sri Lakshmikanth K, learned counsel

for the appellant and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

Respondent No.2 is served with notice, but he has not

appeared before the court.

3. In the first instance, the second respondent

reported to the police stating that on 04.10.2021, when

his father was riding his two wheeler, a stranger dashed

his vehicle and when his father told him to drive

carefully, the latter is said to have put threat to the

former. Sometime later, the very same person brought

another and picked up quarrel with the father of second

respondent and assaulted him with a cricket bat on the

head. As a result there was bleeding from the nose and

mouth and the injured was shifted to hospital.

4. On 27.11.2021 the death occurred.

Investigation is over. CW2 is the eye witness. Perusal :: 4 ::

of his statement shows that the appellant was the

person who picked up quarrel with the deceased on

04.10.2021 at 10.45am. Sometime later, the appellant

came with another i.e., accused No.2. CW2 has stated

that accused No.2 assaulted his father with a cricket

bat. The investigator has collected CCTV footages. So,

the materials available on record clearly indicate that

accused 1 and 2 assaulted the deceased with a cricket

bat. Though the appellant's counsel refers to wound

certificate, where the history is mentioned as road

traffic accident and argues that the appellant was not

responsible for the death, it is to be stated that in the

wound certificate it is also mentioned that the

deceased was assaulted. The post mortem report

shows that death occurred due to septicemia as a result

of injuries.

5. In regard to the submission of the appellant's

counsel that the incident of road traffic accident has

been coloured as an assault by the accused, it has to :: 5 ::

be stated that it is a defence available to him while

cross examining the witnesses. At this stage what

appears is that a kind of rowdyism by the appellant just

because he was advised or asked to ride his two

wheeler carefully. Since prima-facie materials are

forthcoming, the trial court is justified in rejecting the

bail application. I do not find a reason to interfere with

the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed di smissed.

smissed

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-