Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunatha K V vs State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavarpresided Bysaj
-1-
CRL.A No. 98 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI MANJUNATHA K V
S/O LATE VENKATESH D
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.533, 14TH MAIN ROAD
3RD STAGE, D BLOCK, VIJAYANAGARA
MYSORE-570 030.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by SANDHYA S
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. V R BALARAJ, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SHO OF YELAWALA POLICE STATION
MYSORE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURTS BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S VISWA MURTHY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.454 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.07.2022 IN
S.C.NO.215/2013 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE
LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MYSURU AND FURTHER PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION U/S
452 OF CR.P.C. (ANNEXURE-C) FILED BY THE
APPELLANT/APPLICANT IN S.C.NO.215/2013.
-2-
CRL.A No. 98 of 2023
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this matter is listed for admission, with the
consent of both learned counsel, it is taken up for final
disposal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and
learned HCGP for respondent-State.
3. The appellant is the complainant and also first
informant who has been examined as PW.1 in
S.C.No.215/2013. There was murder of parents of
appellant/PW.1 in view of commission of dacoity in their farm
house. The trial was held against accused Nos.1 to 6 and 8 to
14. They came to be acquitted for the offences charged
against them by judgment dated 29.01.2019 passed in
S.C.No.215/2013 by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Mysuru.
CRL.A No. 98 of 2023
4. Learned HCGP for respondent-State submits that
no appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment of
acquittal. In the said judgment dated 29.01.2019, there is an
order for release of M.O.Nos.1 to 6 to PW.1 who is the
appellant herein and also the son of deceased Venkatesh and
Kamakshamma. It was also ordered that appellant/PW.1 has
to receive the said M.O.Nos.1 to 6 on behalf of all legal
representatives of deceased Venkatesh and Kamakshamma.
Even the said order is not challenged.
5. In the said judgment on looking to the cause title,
there is a mention that the case against accused No.7
Yesagunda @ Rajesh, S/o. Ravi and accused No.15 Venkatesh
S/o Muttu came to be split up and pending in
C.C.No.552/2013.
6. In view of the order of release of M.O.Nos.1 to 6 to
this appellant/PW.1, he filed application under Section 452 of
Cr.P.C. seeking release of M.O.Nos.1 to 6 to his interim
custody. The said application came to be rejected by
CRL.A No. 98 of 2023
impugned order dated 21.07.2022 by III Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Mysuru. The said application is rejected on
the ground that the said articles were seized in
S.C.No.212/2013 and an appeal in Crl.A.No.1818/2016 is
pending before this Court which has been filed by one of the
accused in that case. The another reason for rejecting the
application is that the case against accused No.15 is split up
and is pending in C.C.No.552/2013 before JMFC II Court,
Mysuru. What is required to be considered is to secure
production of M.O.Nos.1 to 6 for the purpose of identification
of witnesses in the said split up case. The said
C.C.No.552/2013 is sought to be registered as long pending
case by order dated 07.01.2020 passed in that case.
Therefore, these M.O.Nos.1 to 6 were required for the purpose
of identification of witnesses, if after securing accused Nos.7
and 15 and committal of the said case to Sessions Court.
Merely because the said split up case is pending is not a
ground for refusing release of M.O.Nos.1 to 6 to the
appellant/PW.1. Conditions can be imposed on the
CRL.A No. 98 of 2023
appellant/PW.1 to produce M.O.Nos.1 to 6 whenever they are
required in the trial to be held against accused Nos.7 and 15.
7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The impugned order dated 21.07.2022 passed in
S.C.No.215/2013 by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Mysuru rejecting the application of appellant/PW.1 filed under
Section 452 of Cr.P.C. is set aside.
The application filed by appellant/PW.1 under Section
452 of Cr.P.C. stands allowed.
The Trial Court is directed to release M.O.Nos.1 to 6 to
the interim custody of appellant/PW.1 subject to the following
conditions:
a. Appellant/PW.1 shall execute indemnity bond
for a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs (Rupees Five
lakhs only) with one surety for the likesum to
the satisfaction of the trial court.
CRL.A No. 98 of 2023
b. Appellant/PW.1 shall execute undertaking to
produce M.O.Nos.1 to 6 as and when they
are required in trial to be held against
accused Nos.7 and 15 (C.C.No.552/2013)
(Crime No.17/2013).
c. Appellant/PW.1 shall not alienate, transfer
and change the nature of M.O.Nos.1 to 6 till
trial is concluded against accused Nos.7 and
15.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSD
