Sri. Raghuchandra @ Appi vs The State Of Karnataka Through
2023 Latest Caselaw 7211 Kant

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2023:KHC:36971
                                                         CRL.A No. 1655 of 2023




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

                                              BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1655 OF 2023
                      BETWEEN:

                            SRI. RAGHUCHANDRA @ APPI,
                            S/O MANJUNATHA,
                            AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
                            RESIDING AT MALLESHWARA NAGARA,
                            NEAR RAMA MANDIRA TEMPLE,
                            ARSIKERE TOWN,
                            HASSAN - 573 201
                                                                    ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. B RAVINDRA,ADVOCATE AND
                          SRI K NIRMALA, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
                            DYSP ARASIKERE SUB-DIVISION,
Digitally signed by
                            ARASIKERE TOWN,
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
                            REPRESENTED BY SPP,
Location: HIGH              HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                   BANGALORE - 560001.

                      2.    SMT. SHANTHI
                            W/O LATE ELUMALAI
                            AGED 45 YEARS,
                            R/O 6TH CROSS,
                            HASSAN ROAD RIGHT SIDE,
                            ARASIKERE TOWN,
                            HASSAN - 573 103.
                                                              ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R1;
                          SRI NITHYANANDA K.R. ADVOCATE FOR
                          SRI. SANGAMESH R.B, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                 -2-
                                             NC: 2023:KHC:36971
                                        CRL.A No. 1655 of 2023




      THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2023
IN SPL.CASE NO.412/2023 U/S 439 OF CR.P.C FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 504, 323, 302 OF IPC R/W SEC. 3(2)(V),
3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989,
PENDING BEFORE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPL.
JUDGE, HASSAN AND ENLARGE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN
SPL.CASE NO.412/2023 U/S 14(2), 14(A)(2) OF SC AND ST
(POA) ACT, 1989.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                        JUDGMENT

The sole accused filed this appeal praying to set aside

the order dated 10.08.2023 passed in Spl.C.No.412/2023

by the I Additional District and Sessions and Special

Judge, Hassan, whereunder the bail application of the

appellant/accused sought in respect of Crime No.100/2023

of Arasikere Town Police Station registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 504, 323 and 302 of

Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(V), 3(1)(r)(s) and

3(2)(Va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 came to be rejected.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsels for

appellant/accused, respondent No.2 and learned High

Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

NC: 2023:KHC:36971 CRL.A No. 1655 of 2023

3. The case of the prosecution is that the

appellant/accused was due Generator rent amount to the

deceased and when the deceased forced the

appellant/accused to pay the rent amount of Generator

there was quarrel between them. In that quarrel the

appellant/accused assaulted the deceased with fist on his

face, chest and stomach and deceased succumbed to the

injuries in the hospital. A charge sheet came to be

registered against the appellant/accused for the aforesaid

offences. The appellant/accused, who is in judicial custody

has filed bail petition and same came to be rejected by the

impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused

would contend that there is a complaint and counter

complaint. In the quarrel the appellant/accused and the

deceased both have sustained injuries. The

appellant/accused was not armed and in order to protect

himself he has assaulted the deceased. The brother of the

deceased namely CW-2 who was holding screwdriver and

NC: 2023:KHC:36971 CRL.A No. 1655 of 2023

assaulted the appellant/accused and caused injuries to

him. The act of accused is protected under Section 100 of

IPC. There is delay of 5 hours in filling the complaint.

CW-2 and 3 are not eye witnesses as per their statement

recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The wife of the

appellant/accused has filed the complaint, in which it is

stated that the deceased has fell down on the bike and

sustained injuries to his stomach. The deceased and CW-2

were aggressors and they assaulted the appellant/accused

discriminately. The appellant/accused has also sustained

injuries and he lost some his teeth in the incident. With

this, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to the

appellant/accused.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader would contend that CW-2 to 4 are eye witnesses.

The deceased sustained injuries on his face, chest and

stomach due to assault made by the appellant/accused.

The doctor who conducted the post mortem opined that

death is due to blunt abdominal injury sustained. The

NC: 2023:KHC:36971 CRL.A No. 1655 of 2023

investigation Officer has collected CCTV footage. CW-2 to

4 in their statement clearly stated the overtacts of this

appellant/accused assaulting the deceased with fist on the

stomach and other parts of body of the deceased. The

charge sheet show prima facie case against this

appellant/accused. The offences alleged against this

appellant/accused are heinous offences punishable with

death or life imprisonment. With this, he prays for

dismissal of the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would

contend that CW-2 to 4 are eye witnesses and have seen

the appellant/accused assaulting the deceased with fist on

his face, chest and stomach. The postmortem report

reveal that blood extravasations present over the upper

part of left side of the chest which clearly show that there

was assault on the chest of the deceased. The doctor who

conducted the post mortem opined that cause of death is

due to blunt abdominal injury sustained. The deceased

belongs to the deprived class. If appellant/accused

NC: 2023:KHC:36971 CRL.A No. 1655 of 2023

granted bail there is threat to the complainant and other

prosecution witnesses. With this, he prays for dismissal of

the appeal.

7. Having heard learned counsels for the

appellant/accused, respondent No.2 and learned High

Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State, this

Court perused the impugned order and charge sheet

material.

8. The quarrel between the deceased and the

appellant/accused took place with regard to non payment

of rent of Generator by the appellant/accused. In that

quarrel the appellant/accused assaulted the deceased with

fist on his face, chest and stomach. CW-2 to 4 are eye

witnesses to the incident and in their statement they have

specifically stated the overtacts of this appellant/accused

assaulting the deceased with fist on his face, chest and

stomach. The post mortem report will reveal that the

deceased had sustained two external injuries and cause of

death is due to blunt abdominal injury sustained. In the

NC: 2023:KHC:36971 CRL.A No. 1655 of 2023

counter complaint registered on the complaint of the wife

of this appellant/accused a case came to registered

against the deceased and CW-2 for the offence punishable

under Section 341, 504, 506, 323, 324 and 34 of Indian

Penal Code. On perusal of the F.I.R and complaint of

crime No.101/2023 and present crime No.100/2023 i.e.,

they are complaint and counter complaint. The very fact

itself show that there was quarrel between the deceased

and this appellant/accused. In the said quarrel the

appellant/accused has also sustained injuries. Even though

statement of CW-2 and 3 recorded under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C indicate that they are not eye witnesses but the

statement of CW-4 recorded by the Police itself show that

this appellant/accused assaulted the deceased with fist on

his face, chest and stomach. On perusal of the charge

sheet there is prima facie case against this

appellant/accused for offences alleged against him.

Considering all these aspects the Session Judge/Special

Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of this

appellant/accused. There are no grounds made out for

NC: 2023:KHC:36971 CRL.A No. 1655 of 2023

setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail. In the

result, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DSP