Karnataka High Court

Kedarnath vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 16 May, 2024

                                                 -1-
                                                        NC: 2024:KHC-K:3284
                                                        CRL.A No. 200071 of 2024




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                         KALABURAGI BENCH

                                DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2024

                                               BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200071 OF 2024 (U/S 14 (A))
                      BETWEEN:

                      KEDARNATH S/O VEERABHADRAYYA SWAMY,
                      AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
                      R/O BULLAPUR VILLAGE,
                      TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
                                                                    ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR AND
                       SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, ADVOCATES)
                      AND:

                      1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                            THROUGH SHO, IDAPANUR P.S.,
                            RAICHUR,
                            REP. BY ADDL. SPP, HCK,
Digitally signed by         KALABURAGI-585102.
KHAJAAMEEN L
MALAGHAN
                      2.    K. RAMANNA NAYAK S/O K. BHEEMAYYA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                    AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
KARNATAKA                   R/O BULLAPUR VILLAGE,
                            TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
                                                              ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI RAJKUMAR A. KORWAR, HCGP FOR R1;
                       R2 SERVED)

                           THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)
                      OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
                      ORDER DATED 18.12.2023, PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL
                      DISTRICT   AND   SESSIONS    JUDGE   AT   RAICHUR   IN
                      CRL.MISC.NO.1066/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO
                             -2-
                                   NC: 2024:KHC-K:3284
                                   CRL.A No. 200071 of 2024




ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL APPEAL BY GRANTING BAIL AND
TO RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN (CRIME NO.40/2023)
IDAPANUR P.S. YERAGERA CIRCLE, RAICHUR DIST. FOR AN
OFFENCE U/S. 302, 114, 109 AND SEC. 3(1)(R)(S)(W-1),
3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. PREVENTION OF ATROCITY (AMENDED ) ACT,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE RAICHUR.

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

                       JUDGMENT

Respondent No.2 served and unrepresented.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated

18.12.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1066/2023 by the I

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, wherein

the bail application filed by the appellant/accused No.2

under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, rejected

by the learned Sessions Judge.

3. The appellant is accused No.2 in Crime

No.40/2023 of Idapanur Police Station, Yeragera Circle,

Raichur and charged for the offences punishable under

Sections 302, 109 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3(i)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3284

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Ordinance, 2014.

4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that,

the daughter of the complainant was given in marriage to

accused No.1. Prior to the date of the incident, out of their

wedlock they have begotten two children. It is the further

case of the prosecution that, appellant/accused No.2 had

illicit affair with the wife of accused No.1 i.e. the deceased-

T. Sharada and he used to visit the house of accused No.1

in his absence. The said aspect came to know to accused

No.1 and his brother. As such, the accused No.1 hatched

conspiracy to commit the murder of his wife - T. Sharada.

This being the case, on 11.07.2023 in the morning hours

when accused No.1 went to his land and at about 11.30

a.m. when he was returning to his house, he saw accused

No.2 i.e., the appellant herein was taking with his wife - T.

Sharada. By noticing the same, the accused No.1 got

enraged and tried to assault accused No.2 i.e., appellant

herein with an axe, at that time, accused No.2 escaped by

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3284

abusing accused No.1 that his wife i.e., deceased called

him to the house, as such, he came there and for that he

has to assault his wife by saying so, he escaped from the

spot. Hence, accused No.1 assaulted his wife with axe and

committed the murder. Subsequently, father of the

complainant i.e., respondent No.2 lodged a complaint

before the respondent - Police against accused No.1 and

appellant herein. Thereafter, respondent-Police

investigated the matter and arrested the appellant/

accused on 24.07.2023 and produced him before the

Special Court and remanded to judicial custody.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant filed

bail application before the I Additional District and

Sessions Judge Court, Raichur in Crl.Misc. No.1066/2023

along with accused No.1 which came to be dismissed vide

order dated 18.12.2023. Hence, the appellant preferred

this appeal for grant of bail.

6. Heard Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for

the appellant and Sri Rajkumar A. Korwar, the learned

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3284

HCGP for the respondent No.1-State. Though notice was

served to respondent No.2 but remained unrepresented.

7. It is the primary contention of the learned

counsel for the appellant that on perusal of the complaint

and other charge-sheet materials, absolutely there is no

such overt act attributes against the appellant being

accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 302

of IPC. He further contends that accused No.1 assaulted

his wife with an axe and committed her murder The only

allegation against the appellant is that he abused accused

No.1 and instigated him to commit the murder of his wife

by mentioning the caste of accused No.1. According to the

learned counsel for the appellant even the provision of

SC/ST Act also does not attract in this case for the reason

that the incident was caused inside the house of accused

No.1 and deceased, as such, even the allegation pleaded

accepted at its face value for the sake of argument, the

words uttered by appellant were not in the public view.

Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3284

8. Per contra, Sri Rajkumar A.Korwar, learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State

vehemently contends that the appellant is the root cause

to commit the murder of the deceased and he had an illicit

affair with the deceased. The said aspect was known to

accused No.1 - the husband of the deceased so also her

brother and the appellant/accused No.2 was warned to

that effect, in spite of that he continued his activities.

Further, on the fateful day accused No.2 was very much

present in the house of accused No.1 and he only

instigated accused No.1 to commit the murder.

Neverthless he also abused accused No.1 by mentioning

the caste on him. Hence, there is a prima facie case made

against appellant/accused No.2 herein. Accordingly, he

prays to dismiss the petition.

9. Having heard both the parties and also having

perused the documents produced before this Court, as

rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant,

admittedly the accused No.1 caused the murder of his wife

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3284

deceased by assaulting her with an axe. The only

allegation against the appellant/accused No.2 is that he

instigated accused No.1 by saying that "his wife only called

him", as such, he had been to the house and therefore

accused No.1 has to commit the murder of his wife.

Though CW.12 is cited as an eyewitness to the incident, he

also categorically stated that by abusing accused No.1 as

above, the appellant/accused No.2 ran out from the

house, subsequently accused No.1 committed the murder

of deceased.

10. In such circumstances, without expressing any

opinion on the merits of the case, since the investigation is

completed and charge-sheet has already been filed by the

respondent/police, the custodial detention of the

appellant/accused No.2 does not call for. In that view of

the matter, I am of the considered view that

appellant/accused No.2 may be admitted on bail.

Accordingly, I pass the following :

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3284

ORDER

Appeal is hereby allowed.

The appellant/accused No.2 is directed to be

enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.40/2023 of

Indapanur Police Station, Yeragera Circle, Raichur District

pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions

Jude, Raichur for the offences punishable under

Sections 302, 109 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3(i)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Ordinance, 2014, subject to the following

conditions :

i) The appellant shall execute personal bond for a

sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with

one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of

the trial Judge;