Karnataka High Court
Shreedhara vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 1 August, 2024
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5537
CRL.A No. 200192 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200192 OF 2024 (U/S 14 (A))
BETWEEN:
1. SHREEDHARA
S/O MOHAN BARGE
AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER
R/O GARJANA, TQ. KARAVEERA,
DIST. KOLHAPUR-416001
(MAHARASHTRA STATE)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
KHAJAAMEEN L
MALAGHAN AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH TIKOTA POLICE STATION,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
R/BY ADDL SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH.
2. BILIYANSIDDA
S/O RAMAPPA KALLIMANI
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5537
CRL.A No. 200192 of 2024
R/O JALAGERI TQ. TIKOTA,
DIST VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI MOIN AKHTAR NADAF, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.A FILED U/SEC. 14-A OF SC/ST (PA) ACT,
PRAYING TO i) TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
24.06.2024 PASSED IN CRL MISC NO. 929/2024 BY II-ADDL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE VIJAYAPURA,
ii) TO GRANT THE REGULAR BAIL TO THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
NO.1 IN SPL.C SC/ST ACT NO.18/2024 (TIKOTA PS CRIME NO.
8/2024 DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA), PENDING ON THE FILE OF II
ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE
VIJAYAPURA AND FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 364,
302, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/SEC 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST P.A
AMENDED ACT, 2015.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5537
CRL.A No. 200192 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN)
This appeal is filed by the appellant-accused No.1
under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for
short, hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST (POA) Act')
seeking to set aside the order dated 24.06.2024 passed by
II-Additional District and Sessions & Special Judge,
Vijayapura, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.929/2024
rejecting to grant of regular bail to the appellant and
seeking to grant bail in Crime No.8/2024 registered by
Tikota Police Station, Vijayapura District, for the offences
punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201 r/w Section 34 of
IPC & Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment
Act, 2015.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5537
and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/de-facto
complainant.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the
complaint of respondent No.2/the father of deceased by
name Biliyansidda, who filed a missing complaint to the
police alleging that on 30.12.2023 at about 8:50 p.m.
when they were in the house having dinner, some two
persons came and asked the deceased and accordingly
deceased-Santosh went to talk to them and came inside
and went back along with those two persons.
Subsequently he did not return the complainant tried to
contact his son as he was left the telephone in the house
and did not return and till 05.01.2024 there is no
intimation about the son. Hence, he has filed missing
complaint. Subsequently, on 06.01.2024 the police had
some information about deceased along with accused
Nos.1 and 2 in the company. Subsequently they
apprehended the accused-appellant all on 21.01.2024 and
recorded voluntary statement where this appellant
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5537
confessed that he came in contact with the deceased while
traveling in the vehicle of the deceased and they become
friends and he introduced accused No.2 also to him.
Subsequently, there was a love affair with this appellant
along with some other girl, namely, Shruti and the
deceased said to be asked the accused send the girl and
teasing her. On that background, himself and accused
No.2 committed murder and burnt the dead body.
4. Subsequently in another confessional
statement given by the accused on 24.01.2024 stating
that he had no contact with the deceased, he had a friend-
Shikant i.e.accused No.3 and deceased said to be troubling
accused No.3 and assaulting him and continuously
harassing him, therefore, accused No.3 given supari to
accused Nos.1 and 2 and at his instance he has committed
murder along with accused No.2 and burnt the dead body.
After recording the voluntary statement, accused took the
police to the place of occurrence and police recovered the
partly burnt dead body. Post mortem examination was
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5537
done. The body was maximum burnt, they collected the
burnt bone, skin, jaw/mandible parts and skeleton sent to
the FSL and in the meanwhile, the police have filed the
charge-sheet. The appellant approached the Sessions
Court for granting bail for charge-sheeted offences
punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC &
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, which came to be
dismissed. Hence, the appellant is before this Court
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has
contended that there is no eyewitness to the incident. The
case is based upon the circumstantial evidence, except the
statement of CWs.15 and 22 regarding last seen theory,
there is no incriminating material evidence against the
appellant for having committed the offence. The voluntary
statement given are recorded by the police is altogether
different from each other. The entire story was changed
from the voluntary statement, which is not acceptable.
The appellant is not driver of the tractor, but he is Diploma
in Civil Engineering. The police falsely recorded
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5537
everything. He is in custody from January 2024. The
charge-sheet is filed long back. The other accused also
arrested. Therefore, prayed for grant of bail.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader seriously objected the appeal contending that
there are circumstantial witnesses against the appellant.
The dead body was recovered at the instance of the
accused on the voluntary statement which is admissible.
The dead body was partly burnt and it was sent to the FSL
and now FSL report is not yet received. The blood sample
of the mother of the deceased was taken and sent to the
FSL, which is also not yet received. There is prima facie
material placed on record to show that he has committed
the offence for Rs.50,000/-. The offence is serious one.
Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 also
objected the appeal by filing statement of objections and
stated that CW.15 was last seen, who is a pitty shop
owner where the accused purchased water and kurkure
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5537
packets by paying money of Rs.180 by 'Phone Pe'. Another
CW.22 also seen the accused with the company of the
deceased. The petrol purchased by the accused for the
purpose of burning. The petrol pump salesman has been
enquired and his statement was recorded. There is chain
of circumstances clearly establish the accused Nos.1 and 2
committed the murder of the deceased-Santosh at the
instance of accused No.3. If he has been granted bail, he
may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and
threatened the witnesses. Therefore, to safeguard the
interest of the prosecution, prayed for dismissal of appeal.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the records, it reveal that the case of
the prosecution that on the basis of the missing complaint
of the father, the police registered the FIR. The deceased
went out of the house on 30.12.2023 at about 8:50 p.m.
onwards and the accused Nos.1 and 2 took the deceased
in their motorcycle which is last seen theory stated by the
CWs.15 and 22. The accused also purchased whisky bottle
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5537
prior to the incident they made him to drink, he also
assaulted with dragger and caused injuries and later they
burnt the body with the help of petrol and by using tyre.
There is some difference in the confessional statement
made by accused No.1 on 21.01.2024 and 24.01.2024.
But whatever the confessional statement made by the
accused during the investigation that is not admissible,
except the discovery which is admissible under Section 27
of the Evidence Act. Therefore, first part of the story of the
confession is not admissible, except the last portion that
accused let the police and shown the dead body of the
deceased and in his instance the police recovered the dead
body, which was partly burnt and post mortem report was
done on the spot and later some of the important body
parts were collected and sent to the FSL. While filing
charge-sheet, the police have stated DNA test report
verifying the blood samples of the mother of the deceased
and the particles seized from the dead body is not yet
received. But on looking to the entire allegation there is
prima facie material placed on record which connect the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5537
accused with the crime for having committed the murder
by abducting the deceased, committed murder and
destroy the dead body by throwing stones which are all
recovered at the instance of the accused. Therefore, it
cannot be said there is no material evidence against the
accused for connecting the accused with the crime at this
stage.
9. That apart the accused is from Maharashtra
State. The circumstantial witnesses CWs.15 and 22 are the
stall owners where the accused were purchased water and
other things before commission of murder. They have also
stayed in lodge. The report of the lodge owner/boy have
recorded by the Investigating Officer go to show that the
accused persons were stayed in the lodge and committed
the murder and after completion of murder they vacated
the lodge. These materials are all connecting the accused
with the crime. Therefore, I am of the view that it is not a
fit case for granting bail to the accused-appellant. If he is
enlarged on bail, he may tamper the prosecution
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5537
witnesses apart from destroying the evidence and there is
chances of he may abscond from the case is not ruled out
and it may cause delay in conduct trial.
10. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(K NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
SDU
