Karnataka High Court
Sri Srirama @ Sriramappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavarpresided Bysaj
-1-
CRL.A No. 2248 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2248 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI SRIRAMA @ SRIRAMAPPA
S/O LATE MUNEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT JARAGANAHALLI, NAIDU LAYOUT
RAJEEV GANDHI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 078.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NANJUNDA GOWDA M R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PUTTENAHALLI POLICE
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally signed
by SANDHYA S BENGALURU -560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SMT. CHAITHRA V
KARNATAKA W/O LATE ANIL KUMAR N V
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT RAMASANDRA ROAD
MULBAGAL TOWN
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S VISWA MURTHY, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED - ABSENT AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE BAIL ORDER DATED
-2-
CRL.A No. 2248 of 2022
02.12.2022 PASSED IN SPL.C.No.1627/2022 ON THE FILE OF
THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71) AND ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S.302, 201, 342 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND
SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) 1989.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by accused No.1 praying to set
aside the order dated 02.12.2022 passed in Spl.Case No.
1627/2022 whereunder the bail application filed by
appellant - accused No. 1 in crime No. 117/2022 of
Puttenahalli Police station for the offence punishable under
Sections 302, 201, 342 read with Section 34 of IPC and
Section 3(2)(v) of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
came to be rejected.
2. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 - State.
Inspite of service of notice respondent No. 2 remained
absent and unrepresented.
CRL.A No. 2248 of 2022
3. Case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2
filed missing complaint of missing of her husband
deceased Anil Kumar before the Mulbagal Town Police
Station on 20.03.2022. The said complaint came to be
registered in Crime No.43/2022 of Mulbagal Police Station.
During the investigation, it is revealed that deceased had
relationship with the wife of accused No.1 and in respect
of the same panchayath was conducted and deceased was
warned not to visit the house of accused No.1. Inspite of
it, on 16.03.2022 on the pretext of searching job,
deceased went to the house of accused No.1. Thereafter,
accused Nos.1 and 2 wrongfully confined the deceased in
their house and on 17.03.2022 at about 12.00 midnight,
accused Nos.1 and 2 committed murder of deceased by
assaulting him by means of watergate valve and also by
inserting the cloth in his mouth.
4. Appellant - accused No. 1 came to be arrested on
27.03.2022 and who is in judicial custody filed bail
CRL.A No. 2248 of 2022
application and the same came to be rejected by the
impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.
5. Leaned counsel for the appellant would contend
that missing complaint came to be filed by the wife of the
deceased. The dead body of the deceased was traced on
27.03.2022 and the postmortem is conducted and the
Doctor has not given opinion regarding the cause of death
pending receipt of FSL report. It is his further submission
that C.W.10 and C.W.11 who are said to be the eye
witnesses were the neighbourers of the accused persons
and they have not stated anything with regard to the
assault on the deceased by accused Nos. 1 and 2 with
means of any weapons, but they have stated that on
17.03.2022, accused Nos. 1 and 2 have assaulted the
deceased with hands at about 11 a.m. As per the case of
the prosecution the alleged incident took place on
17.03.2022 at 12.00 midnight. With regard to the said
incident which took place on 17.03.2022 there are no eye
CRL.A No. 2248 of 2022
witnesses. The voluntary statement of accused Nos. 1 and
2 were recorded. There is only recovery of water gate
valve and motor cycle at the instance of appellant -
accused No. 1. As the case of the prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence, it is for the prosecution to prove
each of the circumstance. Without considering all these
aspects learned Sessions/Special Judge has passed the
impugned order which requires interference by this Court.
With this he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to
appellant - accused No. 1.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for
respondent No.1 - state would contend that C.W.10 and
C.W.11 are the eye witnesses to the incident and they
have specifically stated the overt acts of appellant -
accused No. 1. This appellant - accused No. 1 is having
motive as the deceased was having illicit relationship with
his wife. Charge sheet material show prima facie case
against this appellant - accused No. 1. One of the offence
CRL.A No. 2248 of 2022
alleged is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
Considering all these aspects learned Sessions Judge has
rightly rejected the bail application of appellant - accused
No. 1 which does not call for any interference by this
Court. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant and the learned HCGP for
respondent No. 1 - State this Court has gone through the
impugned order and charge sheet records.
8. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased
was having illicit relationship with the wife of appellant -
accused No.1 and he was warned in that regard by the
members of the panchayath. On 16.03.2022, deceased
went to the house of accused No.1 where the accused
persons confined the deceased in their house. The dead
body of the deceased was found on 27.03.2022 in a pond.
The Doctor who conducted post mortem examination over
CRL.A No. 2248 of 2022
the dead body of deceased has kept pending his final
opinion regarding the cause of death pending receipt of
FSL report. As on today, there is no material to show
what is the cause of death of deceased. C.W.10 and
C.W.11 who are said to be the eye witnesses have stated
only the assault by appellant - accused No.1 with hands at
11 a.m. on 17.03.2022. There are no eye witnesses to the
incident which took place on 17.03.2022 at 12.00
midnight. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is based
on circumstantial evidence. As the charge sheet is filed
the appellant - accused No. 1 is not required for custodial
interrogation. As the case is based on circumstantial
evidence it is for the prosecution to prove each of the
circumstance at the stage of trial. Without considering all
these aspects learned Sessions/Special Judge has passed
the impugned order which requires interference by this
Court.
CRL.A No. 2248 of 2022
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
submission of the learned counsel for the parties,
appellant - accused No. 1 has made out case for setting
aside the impugned order and granting bail to the
appellant - accused No.1 with conditions. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
02.12.2022 passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.
No. 1627/2022 is set aside. Consequently, the appellant -
accused No. 1 is granted bail and he is ordered to be
released on bail in Crime No.117/2022 of Puttenahalli
Police station subject to the following conditions:
i. The appellant - accused No.1 shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the trial Court.
CRL.A No. 2248 of 2022
ii. The appellant - accused No.1 shall not tamper the
prosecution witnesses.
iii. The appellant - accused No.1 shall attend the Court
on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-
operate in speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LRS
