Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 523 (KAR)

Suji Manju @ Manjunatha v. State Of Karnataka

2020-02-24

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The above petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to be enlarged on bail in respect of Crime No.140/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC and to set aside the order dated 01.04.2019, passed by the II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari in Crl.Misc.No.198/2019. 2. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 is the wife of deceased-Nagaraj and out of their wedlock, they have got three children. Accused No.1 used to go to coolie work for plucking chilies for last three years and accused No.2 was also doing the same work. Both of them developed illegal intimacy with each other, they were caught red handed by the deceased in the house of the deceased. The deceased assaulted accused Nos.1 and 2 and warned them not to indulge in the same act once again. Thereafter, the deceased used to assault accused No.1 on several occasions. Hence, accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired with each other to do away with the life of the deceased and as such on 12.11.2018 at about 11:15 p.m., when the deceased was sleeping in the house, accused No.1 assaulted with pestel on his head, when the deceased did not die, accused No.2 assaulted him and on the death of the deceased they put the body in a plastic bag and kept it in the neighboring house. Later on with the help of accused No.3 they took the body and dumped the same in the salt water cannel situated in between Yelubenchi and Sriramarangapur village. The PDO, Yelubenchi on 13.11.2018 at about 7:00 p.m. filed a complaint stating the villagers had complained of a dead body floating in the canal. The body was removed from canal, thereafter identified and complaint came to be registered against the unknown persons. 3. Subsequently, after recording the voluntary statement of accused No.1, accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested on 17.11.2018 since then accused Nos.1 and 2 have been in judicial custody. Accused No.3 has been enlarged on bail by way of order dated 17.09.2019, by this Court in Crl.P.No.101206/2019. 4. Accused Nos.2 and 3 had approached the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari in Crl.Misc.No.198/2019 by filing a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to be enlarged on bail. Accused No.3 has been enlarged on bail by way of order dated 17.09.2019, by this Court in Crl.P.No.101206/2019. 4. Accused Nos.2 and 3 had approached the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari in Crl.Misc.No.198/2019 by filing a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to be enlarged on bail. The said application came to be rejected vide order dated 1st April 2019 by the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari on the ground that a perusal of the statements recorded by the Police would establish that there are prima facie materials to show the commission of offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B) of IPC and in the event of accused being released on bail, they may tamper the prosecution witness as also hamper the trial. 5. Shri Sadiq N.Goodwala, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially a complaint was filed against the unknown persons and thereafter recording voluntary statement of accused No.1, accused No.2 has been roped in and there is no eyewitnesses to the crime. Except for the allegations, which have been made there is nothing on record to establish that accused No.2 has committed the said offences. He further submits that this Court having enlarged accused No.3 on bail vide its order dated 17th September 2019, accused No.2 also ought to be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent State submits that accused No.1 not only implicated accused No.2, the weapon used to commit the murder has been recovered at the instance of accused No.1. Further more, the investigation also reveals several telephonic conversation between accused No.1 and accused No.2 prior to and subsequent to the offence having been committed. CWs.12, 13 and 14 being the children of the deceased, the accused No.1 have stated about a person visiting he house often as also the fights which occurred between the deceased and accused No.1. 7. In the light of the above, the learned HCGP submits that it is a pre-planed murder committed and is an heinous offence; the accused ought not to be enlarged on bail. 8. Heard Shri Sadiq N.Goodwala, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State. Perused the papers. 9. On the basis of the foul smell emanating from the canal, the PDO, filed a complaint requesting the Police to take necessary action. 8. Heard Shri Sadiq N.Goodwala, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State. Perused the papers. 9. On the basis of the foul smell emanating from the canal, the PDO, filed a complaint requesting the Police to take necessary action. The Police visited the spot, fished out the body and registered the complaint. At the time the initial complaint was registered even the identity of the deceased was not capable of being ascertained. Thus, the contention of Shri Sadiq N.Goodwala, learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint was filed against the unknown persons and at that point of time neither accused No.1 nor accused No.2 have been implicated would not hold water, since the complaint was filed by third party only as regards the body floating in the canal and foul smell emanating there from. 10. The further contention of Shri Sadiq N.Goodwala that there are no witnesses and that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence is something which has to be established during the course of trial. At present there is sufficient material to establish that accused No.1 and accused No.2 were in contact with each other and it is stated that innumerable telephonic conversation took place between accused No.1 and accused No.1 prior to and subsequent to the incident. The children CWs.12, 13 and 14 have also deposed about a man coming to their house, as also the fight between their parents. 11. It cannot therefore at this point of time be stated that there is no case made out against accused No.2 and his complicity, in regard thereto. The crime that accused No2 has been charged with being punishable with death or imprisonment for life. This would not be a proper case for this Court to interfere and enlarge the petitioner on bail. 12. The decision of this Court in Crl.P.No.101206/2019, dated 17.09.2019 enlarging accused No.3 on bail would also not help accused No.2 since the only allegation made against accused No.3 was as regards the transportation and disposal of the dead body. Whereas, the allegation against petitioner-accused No.2 is as regards the act of murder. 13. In view of the above, the petition filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 stands rejected.