Karnataka High Court
Basavaraju @ B N Ramesh vs State By on 12 February, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5977
CRL.A No. 1868 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1868 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. BASAVARAJU @ B N RAMESH
S/O NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/A 1010/H, 14TH CROSS
HEBBAL, MYSURU - 570 016.
PERMANENT ADDRESS AT
RAGIBOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 316.
2. MAHADEVA @ ERULLI MAHADEVA
S/O MARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT No.16, 4TH CROSS
NEAR SUBRAMANY TEMPLE
HEBBAL 3RD STAGE
Digitally signed by MYSURU - 570 016.
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI ...APPELLANTS
Location: HIGH (BY SRI JAGADEESH C M, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. STATE BY
V.V.PURAM POLICE STATION
MYSURU - 570 002.
REPRESENTED BY: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
STATE OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5977
CRL.A No. 1868 of 2023
2. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT No.34, 3RD MAIN ROAD
1ST BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 050.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. N ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1
R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU IN
SPL.C.No.524/2023 DATED 21.09.2023 FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 302 AND 201 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST
(POA) AMENDED ACT IN CR.No.15/2023 OF V.V.PURAM POLICE
STATION, MYSURU AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON BAIL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellants - accused Nos.1
and 2, praying to set-aside the order dated 21.09.2023
passed in Special Case No.524/2023 by the VI Additional
District and Special Judge, Mysuru, whereunder the bail
application of the appellants - accused Nos.1 and 2 sought
in respect of Crime No.15/2023 of V.V.Puram Police
Station for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to
NC: 2024:KHC:5977
as 'IPC') and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(for short hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST Act"),
came to be rejected.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellants - accused Nos.1 and 2 and learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State. Inspite
of service of notice, respondent No.2 has remained absent
and un-represented.
3. Case of the prosecution is that; appellant No.1 -
accused No.1 had an intimacy with the deceased Sowmya
and he had promised her that he will marry her and had
physical contact with her. Appellant No.1 - accused No.1
came to know that the deceased Sowmya belongs to
Scheduled Caste. The deceased Sowmya started insisting
appellant No.1 - accused No.1 to marry her and the family
members of appellant No.1 - accused No.1 insisted him to
marry daughter of his sister and therefore, in order to
finish the deceased, appellant No.1 - accused No.1, on
NC: 2024:KHC:5977
15.04.2023 in between 11.30 am., and 12.30 Noon,
assaulted the deceased with the spanner on her head and
killed her. After the said incident, appellant No.2 -
accused No.2 helped appellant No.1 - accused No.1 by
bolting him in a room and also bolting the house from
outside and assisted him to escape from the clutches of
law. Charge sheet came to be filed against accused
No.1 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC
and for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
Act, and as against appellant No.2 - accused No.2 for the
offence under Section 201 of IPC. The appellants -
accused Nos.1 and 2 who are in judicial custody have filed
the bail application before the Special Court and the same
came to be rejected by the impugned order which has
been challenged in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants - accused
Nos.1 and 2 would contend that there are no eye
witnesses to the incident and case of the prosecution is
based on the circumstantial evidence. He further contends
NC: 2024:KHC:5977
that on looking to the statements of the witnesses,
especially CW4, appellant No.1 - accused No.1 was found
inside the room which was bolted from outside and the
dead body was found in the Hall. Therefore, appellant
No.1 - accused No.1 has not committed murder of the
deceased. He submits that there are contradictions with
regard to the seizure of banyan. He submits that there is
no role of appellant No.2 - accused No.2 in commission of
murder of the deceased and the allegation against him is
that he assisted appellant No.1 - accused No.1 after
commission of murder by him, by bolting him inside the
room and bolting the house from outside. He submits that
no overt-act of assault is alleged against appellant No.2 -
accused No.2 and the offence alleged against him is under
Section 201 of IPC. With this, he prayed to allow the
appeal and grant bail to the appellants - accused Nos.1
and 2.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 - State would contend that the articles
NC: 2024:KHC:5977
collected by the prosecution would establish the
involvement of this appellant No.1 - accused No.1 in
commission of murder of the deceased. There is recovery
of spanner at the instance of appellant No.1 - accused
No.1 and there is also recovery of shirt, pant, scooter and
purse from the person of the accused under mahazar. The
said spanner and shirt are found to be blood stained.
There is also recovery of banyan at the instance of
appellant No.1 - accused No.1 from the house of the
deceased which was soaked in bucket and the F.S.L report
also indicate that it is blood stained. She contends that
the voluntary statement of appellant No.1 - accused No.1
corroborates all these aspects. She contends that there is
a prima facie case against this appellant No.1 - accused
No.1 in murder of the deceased Sowmya. She contends
that appellant No.2 - accused No.2 after murder of the
deceased assisted appellant No.1 - accused No.1 to
escape from the clutches of law, by bolting him in the
room and bolting the house from out side, so as to say
NC: 2024:KHC:5977
that he has not committed the murder. With this, she
prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel, the Court has
perused the impugned order and the charge sheet records.
7. The deceased was a divorcee and this appellant No.1
- accused No.1 had an intimacy with her, which led to
physical contact with her. Appellant No.1 - accused No.1
when insisted by the deceased to marry her, found that
she belongs to Scheduled Caste and the family members
of appellant No.1 - accused No.1 insisted him to marry
daughter of his sister, therefore, there is a motive for
appellant No.1 - accused No.1 to commit murder of the
deceased Sowmya. There is recovery of banyan, shirt and
spanner under the mahazar, at the instance of appellant
No.1 - accused No.1. The said spanner, banyan and shirt
are found to be of blood stained in the F.S.L report. The
voluntary statement of appellant No.1 - accused No.1
corroborates all these aspects. On perusal of the entire
charge sheet material, there is a prima facie case against
NC: 2024:KHC:5977
appellant No.1 - accused No.1. Considering the said
aspect, the learned District and Special Judge has rightly
rejected his bail application.
8. The accusation against appellant No.2 - accused
No.2 is that he has committed the offence under Section
201 of IPC. He is alleged to have helped appellant No.1 -
accused No.1 to escape from the clutches of law by bolting
him inside the room and bolting the house from outside,
to show that he was bolted inside the house and therefore,
he has not committed the offence. There is no allegation
of assaulting the deceased by this appellant No.2 -
accused No.2. Therefore, appellant No.2 - accused No.2
is entitled for grant of bail. In the result, following;
ORDER
The appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order
is confirmed sofar as appellant No.1 - accused No.1 is
concerned. The impugned order is set-aside sofar as
appellant No.2 - accused No.2 is concerned. Appellant
No.2 - accused No.2 is granted bail in Crime No.15/2023
NC: 2024:KHC:5977
by V.V.Puram Police Station, subject to the following
conditions;
ORDER
(i) Appellant No.2 - accused No.2 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 jurisdictional
Court.
(ii) Appellant No.2 - accused No.2 shall not
threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) Appellant No.2 - accused No.2 shall attend
the Court on all dates of hearing, unless
exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of
the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GH
