Karnataka High Court
Mahesha vs State By Medigeshi Police on 23 February, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
CRL.A No. 2146 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No. 2172 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2146 OF 2022
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2172 OF 2022
CRL. A.No.2146/2022:
BETWEEN:
MAHESHA
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
HOSAKERE VILLAGE
MEDIGESHI HOBLI
MADUGIRI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 133.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N SURESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SANDHYA S 1. STATE BY MEDIGESHI POLICE
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS SUB INSPECTOR
COURT OF MADHUGIRI TALUK
KARNATAKA TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 133.
2. VEENA
W/O MARUTHI
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
R/O HOSAKERE VILLAGE
MEDIGESHI HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 133.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S VISWA MURTHY, HCGP FOR R1
SRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
CRL.A No. 2146 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No. 2172 of 2022
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2022 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.1421/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201,
504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(va) OF SC/ST(POA) ACT, ON
THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TUMKURU.
CRL. A.No. 2172/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRINIVASALU
S/O NARASIMALU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
2. RANGANATHA
S/O RANGARAJU
AGE 24 YEARS.
APPELLANTS No.1 AND 2
ARE RESIDING AT
HOSAKERE VILLAGE
MEDIGESHI HOBLI
MADUGIRI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT- 572 133.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI N SURESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY MEDIGESHI POLICE
REPRESENTED BY ITS SUB INSPECTOR
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 133.
2. VEENA
W/O MARUTHI
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
R/O HOSAKERE VILLAGE
MEDIGESHI HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK
-3-
CRL.A No. 2146 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No. 2172 of 2022
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 133.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S VISWA MURTHY, HCGP FOR R1
SRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2022 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.1420/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKURU.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Crl.A. No. 2146/2022 is filed by appellant - accused
No. 2 challenging the order dated 03.11.2022 passed in
Crl.Misc. No. 1421/2021. Crl.A. No. 2172/2022 is filed by
appellants - accused Nos. 3 and 4 praying to set aside the
order dated 03.11.2022 passed in Crl.Misc. No.
1420/2022. Both the orders are passed by the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru. The
appellants had sought for grant of bail in crime No.
125/2021 (Spl.C. No. 346/2022) of Medigeshi Police
station for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 read
with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Bail petitions filed by
CRL.A No. 2146 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No. 2172 of 2022
the appellants who are accused Nos. 2 to 4 have been
rejected by the impugned orders both dated 03.11.2022
which is challenged in these appeals.
2. Heard learned counsel for appellants, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP appearing
for respondent No. 1 - State.
3. Charge sheet discloses that accused No. 1 picked
up quarrel with the deceased Ramesh Babu and accused
Nos. 2 to 7 assaulted him with hands and legs, accused
No. 4 held the legs of the deceased tightly, accused Nos. 5
and 6 held his hands, accused Nos.2 and 3 strangulated
him with plastic rope.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend
that accused No.1 has been granted bail by the trial Court
and accused Nos. 5 to 7 have been granted bail by this
Court in Crl.A. No. 1000/2022. He submits that the
CRL.A No. 2146 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No. 2172 of 2022
deceased had illicit relationship with accused Nos. 6 and 7,
accused No. 6 is the wife of accused No. 1 and accused
No. 7 is the mother-in-law of accused No. 1. He contends
that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and case of
the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. He
contends that accused Nos. 2 to 4 are not related to the
deceased and complainant. There is no recovery of
weapons from the appellants. As the charge sheet is filed
the appellants - accused Nos. 2 to 4 are not required for
custodial interrogation. The appellants - accused Nos.2 to
4 are ready to abide by any terms and conditions. With
this he prayed to allow the appeals and grant bail to the
appellants.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that
respondent No. 2 who is the complainant is the eye
witness to the incident. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 strangulated
the deceased with plastic wire. The postmortem report
reveals that death is due to asphyxia as a result of ligature
CRL.A No. 2146 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No. 2172 of 2022
strangulation associated with head injury sustained.
Accused No. 4 held the legs, accused Nos. 5 and 6 held
hands of the deceased and at that time accused Nos. 2
and 3 strangulated the deceased with plastic wire. He
contends that there is a prima facie case against the
appellants for the offence alleged against them. With this
he prayed to dismiss the appeals.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would
contend that complainant is an eye witness to the incident
and she has stated regarding the overt acts of the
appellants in her further statement recorded on
29.10.2021. Accused Nos.2 and 3 strangulated the
deceased with plastic wire and the Doctor who conducted
postmortem over the dead body of the deceased has
opined that death is as a result of asphyxia as a result of
ligature strangulation associated with head injury
sustained. He contends that there is a prima facie case
CRL.A No. 2146 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No. 2172 of 2022
against the appellants for the offence alleged against
them. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeals.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP
appearing for respondent No.1 - State this Court has gone
through the impugned orders and charge sheet material.
8. Motive alleged is that the deceased was having
illicit relationship with accused Nos. 6 and 7 and therefore
accused No. 1 who is the husband of accused No. 6 and
son-in-law of accused No. 7 started quarreling with the
deceased and at that time accused Nos. 5 and 6 held the
hands of the deceased and accused No. 4 held the legs of
the deceased and accused Nos. 2 and 3 strangulated the
deceased with plastic wire. Said plastic wire and stone
have been recovered from the spot under mahazar.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that there
are no eye witnesses to the incident. But, a perusal of the
CRL.A No. 2146 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No. 2172 of 2022
averments of the complaint and statement of the
complainant recorded on 29.10.2021, reveal that she is an
eye witness to the incident. Complainant has specifically
strangulating the deceased with plastic wire. The Doctor
who conducted postmortem examination over the dead
body of the deceased has opined that the death of the
deceased is due to asphyxia as a result of ligature
strangulator associated with head injury. Therefore, there
is a prima facie case against accused Nos.2 and 3 for the
offence alleged against them. Sofar as overt act alleged
against accused No. 4 is concerned, it is stated that he
had held the legs of the deceased. There is also accusation
against accused Nos. 5 and 6 that they had held the hands
of the deceased. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 have already been
granted bail by this Court in Crl.A. No. 1000/2022. Taking
into consideration all the above aspects, accused Nos. 2
and 3 have not made out any grounds for setting aside the
impugned order and grant bail to them. Accused No.4 has
made out a case for setting aside the impugned order and
CRL.A No. 2146 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No. 2172 of 2022
grant bail to him with terms and conditions. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Crl.A. No. 2146/2022 filed by appellant - accused No. 2
is dismissed.
Crl.A. No. 2172/2022 insofar as appellant - accused No.
3 is dismissed and insofar as the appellant - accused No. 4
is allowed. Impugned order dated 03.11.2022 passed in
Crl.Misc. No. 1420/2022 by III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, is set aside insofar as accused
No. 4 is concerned. Consequently appellant - accused No.
4 is ordered to be released on bail in crime No. 125/2021
of Medigeshi Police station subject to following conditions:
i. Appellant - accused No. 4 shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
only) with one surety to the likesum to the
satisfaction of the trial Court.
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 2146 of 2022
C/w. CRL.A. No. 2172 of 2022
ii. Appellant - accused No. 4 shall not tamper the
prosecution witnesses.
iii. Appellant - accused No. 4 shall appear before the
trial Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted
by the Court and cooperate in speedy disposal of the
case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LRS
