Karnataka High Court
Sathisha S vs State Of Karnataka on 4 April, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13939
CRL.A No. 2095 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2095 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SATHISHA S.,
S/O LATE SHANIVARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT WARD NO.23, KARADIPURA,
MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 132.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MOHANKUMAR D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KORATAGERE POLICE STATION,
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
Digitally
signed by V BENGALURU - 560 001.
KRISHNA
2. HANUMANTHARAYA,
Location: High
Court of S/O LAKSHMAIAH,
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DURGENAHALLY VILLAGE,
THUBUGERE HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL - 561 203.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP;
SRI. S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, AMICUS CURIAE)
RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SERVED.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13939
CRL.A No. 2095 of 2023
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)
ACT,1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE REJECTED BAIL ORDER
DATED 04.05.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN
CRL.MISC.NO.353/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.302, 201,
109 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT
KORATAGERE POLICE STATION IN CR.NO.297/2022
(SPL.C.NO.262/2023) AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPELLANT
MAY BE ENLARGED ON BAIL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the order dated
04.05.2023 passed by the III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, rejecting the application
preferred by the appellant/accused No.3 under Section
439 of Cr.P.C.
NC: 2024:KHC:13939
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the
learned High Court Government Pleader as well as the
learned amicus curie and perused the material on record.
3. Respondent No.2/defacto complainant is served
but unrepresented.
4. Crime No.297/2022 of Koratagere Police
Station, Tumakur District was registered against accused
No.1, on a suo-moto complaint lodged by the PSI of
Koratagere Police Station, Tumakur, for the offences
punishable under Section 302, 201 of IPC.
5. It is averred in the complaint that on
30.11.2022 at about at about 12.51 pm when the
complainant was in the police station, he received a phone
call from one Krishnamurthy-CW8, who informed him that
his brother-in-law by name Lokesh-accused No.1 called
him on his mobile phone on 29.11.2022 at about 6.15 am
and told him that he has committed the murder of a
person on account of some money dispute and buried the
dead body in the land situated in Doddalla of Reddyhalli
NC: 2024:KHC:13939
village. On receiving the said information, complainant
along with Krishnamurthy went to the spot and noticed the
land was dug and also presence of blood stains.
6. One Hanumantaraya-CW1, brother of the
deceased visited the police station on 01.12.2022 at about
3.00 pm and alleged that Lokesh/accused No.1 was having
an illicit relationship with one Venkatalakshmi, the wife of
his brother Suresh and in view of the said illicit
relationship, Lokesh has committed the murder of his
brother along with other accused persons and buried the
dead body.
7. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on
02.12.2022. The appellant/accused No.3 was arrested on
03.12.2022. Their voluntary statements were recorded.
The dead body was exhumed on 03.12.2022 and a
mahazar was conducted.
8. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of
death is due to throttling. The charge-sheet came to be
filed against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences
NC: 2024:KHC:13939
punishable under Section 302, 201, 109 read with Section
34 of IPC and 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (POA) Amendment
Act 2015.
9. It is the case of prosecution that, accused No.1
Lokesh was having an illicit intimacy with accused No.5,
wife of the deceased and in this connection the deceased
was quarrelling with his wife. Since, deceased was an
obstacle for their illicit relationship, on 28.11.2022 at
about 12.30 noon, the accused persons took the deceased
in an auto rickshaw near Madhugiri bypass, made him to
consume alcohol at one Madhugiri Wines and at about
11.00 pm took him to the outskirts of Madhugiri Town, to
an isolated Place and committed his murder by throttling
him.
10. The entire case is based on circumstantial
evidence. From the possession of the appellant/accused
No.3, one two wheeler and a mobile phone are recovered.
The said articles recovered cannot be said to be
incriminating against the appellant. The learned Amicus
NC: 2024:KHC:13939
Curiae would point out that at the instance of accused
Nos.1 to 3 clothes of the deceased are also recovered and
CW10 working as a cashier at one Madhugiri Wines, has
seen the deceased along with the accused persons
purchasing beer bottles from his Wine Shop on 28.11.2022
at about 8.00 pm. It is therefore contended that the
deceased was last seen in the company of the accused
persons including the appellant herein, prior to his death.
11. The motive is attributed against accused No.1
wherein, it is alleged that he was having an illicit
relationship with the wife of the deceased, arraigned as
accused No.5. Initially, one Krishnamurthy (CW8) called
the police and informed that accused No.1 made a phone
call to him about committing the murder and also burying
the dead body. The statement of CW8 has been recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He has named accused No.1.
As per the statements of CW6 to CW8 on 28.11.2022 at
about 12.00 noon they saw accused No.1 and deceased
going together in an auto rickshaw. The said witnesses
NC: 2024:KHC:13939
have not spoken about the presence of appellant along
with the deceased. The statement of CW10 is recorded on
27.01.2023. As per the mahazar dated 02.12.2022
initially, accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested and they led
the police to the spot where the dead body was buried.
The appellant was arrested on 03.12.2022, obviously after
the arrest of accused Nos.1 and 2. According to the
prosecution, the appellant has throttled the deceased.
Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses. Except the
voluntary statement, there are no material to substantiate
the said allegation.
12. The investigation is completed and the charge-
sheet is filed. The appellant has no criminal antecedents.
He has undertaken to furnish adequate surety and to
appear before the Court regularly. Hence, the relief sought
by the appellant can be granted by imposing conditions.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:13939
i) The order dated 04.05.2023 passed by the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in
Crl.Misc No.353/2023 is set aside.
ii) Appellant/accused No.3 in Crime No.297/2022
of Koratagere Police Station, pending in
Spl.C.No.262/2023 on the file of the III Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, shall be released on bail
subject to following conditions:
a) He shall execute a bond in a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh Only) with two
sureties for the likesum.
b) He shall furnish proof of his
residential address and shall inform the
Investigation Officer/Court, if there is any
change in the address.
c) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the trial Court without prior permission of the
learned Sessions Judge.
d) He shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses either directly or
indirectly.
NC: 2024:KHC:13939
e) He shall appear before the trial Court
on all dates of hearing without fail.
The learned Amicus Curiae shall be paid a sum
of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) by the
High Court Legal Services Committee.
The observation made in this order shall not
influence the Trial of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KBM
