Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1848 (KAR)

Irappa Kali v. State Of Karnataka

2020-09-24

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.104/2014 of Kundagol Police Station (pending in SC No.74/2015 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 506, 404, 120B, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity). 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant's elder sister-Renavva and her husband Govindappa Gokavi son of Basappa Gokavi, both were residing in Nalavadi village, Navalgund taluk and they had 200 sheep and the accused with an intention to rob those 200 sheep conspired together to commit the murder of Govindappa Gokavi and his wife Renavva on 06.08.2014 at 20.30 hours and accordingly, on 06.08.2014, at 00.30 hours, accused No.2 made a phone call to Govindappa Gokavi and confirmed that he is coming to the sheep corral and all the 3 accused surrounded Govindappa Gokavi in land bearing Sy.No.206/3 and accused No.1 with talwar, accused No.2 also with talwar and accused No.3 with talwar and knife assaulted him and killed him and robbed one mobile phone and cash of Rs.2,000/- and with an intention to disappear the evidence, they tied the dead body with the dhoti of the deceased and took it and buried it in the land bearing Sy.No.208/6. It is the further case of the prosecution that in furtherance of their conspiracy to kill Renavva wife of Govindappa Gokavi, on 10.08.2014 at 18.30 hours, when Renavva was in the sheep corral situated in Sy.No.158/2, assaulted her with talwar and knife on her head, right ear, right hand, neck, shoulder and back and killed her and this incident was witnessed by a shepherd-CW-21 and they chased him and tried to commit his murder and accused No.2 threatened CW-20, who is an eyewitness to the incident and demanded Rs.20,000/- from him to escape threatening him that he will tell his name to the police as offender and all the 3 accused have burnt their clothes worn at the time of the incident. Charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 404, 506, 120B and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. Charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 404, 506, 120B and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner/accused No.2 had filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi, by order dated 10.07.2015. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner/accused No.2 is in judicial custody since 10.03.2015. It is his further submission that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR and subsequently, his name has been mentioned in the charge sheet. It is his further submission that 19 witnesses have been examined and maximum witnesses have turned hostile and only some of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. It is his further submission that the seizure witnesses have also turned hostile. It is his further submission that accused No.2 is suffering from kidney stone problem. With these, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that CWs.20 and 21 are eyewitnesses to the incident. CW-20 has witnessed the accused killing the Govindappa Gokavi and CW-21 is an eyewitness to the incident with respect to the murder of Renavva. It is her further submission that the statements of CWs.20 and 21 have been recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and they have categorically stated regarding the overt act of the petitioner/accused No.2. It is her further submission that phone conversation of accused No.2 with CW-20 has been recorded by him in his mobile and the same has been mentioned in his statement recorded by the police. It is her further submission that material witnesses CWs.20 and 21 are not yet examined. If the petitioner/accused No.2 is granted bail, he will threaten CWs.20 and 21 and other prosecution witnesses to be examined. With this, she prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. 7. The present petitioner is accused No.2 in the charge sheet. With this, she prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. 7. The present petitioner is accused No.2 in the charge sheet. The case involves double murder i.e., murder of Govindappa Gokavi and his wife Renavva. Out of the witnesses cited, 19 witnesses have been examined and out of them, some have supported and some of the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The material witnesses in the prosecution case are CWs.20 and 21 who are eyewitnesses to the incident. The statements of CWs.20 and 21 have been recorded by the police as well as the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. CW- 20 has recorded the conversation between himself and accused No.2 in his mobile. The evidence of CWs.20 and 21 is very material to the prosecution case. If the petitioner/accused No.2 is granted bail, he will threaten CWs.20 and 21 and there will be life threat to those witnesses. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are no valid grounds for granting bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is rejected.