Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 680 (KAR)

Basavaraj v. State

2020-03-09

ARAVIND KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri Nandkishore Boob, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri Mallikarjun Sawkar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. Perused the records. 2. Petitioner is the sole accused charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 325, 323 and 308 of IPC as per the charge sheet. 3. One Shambanna Gouda S/o Chennappa Gouda Malipatil lodged a complaint on 29.05.2014 before Shahapur Police Station alleging that Gurunathreddy had married Bharathi nine days back i.e., on 20.05.2014 and for purchasing ornaments they had been to Shahapur on 29.05.2014 at about 11.00 a.m., and while returning at about 7.30 p.m., a cruiser vehicle driven in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed against said vehicle resulting in grievous injuries being sustained by inmates of the said vehicle and on account of grievous injuries sustained by Smt. Bharathi, she succumbed to the injuries at the spot. It was alleged by him that said accident was seen by Chandra Reddy (CW 30) and he had informed the complainant over phone and as such, he rushed to the spot and found that Smt.Bharathi had already succumbed to the injuries at spot and Sri Gurunathreddy had sustained severe head injury and Smt.Kavya and her daughter Keerthi had also sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he stated that injured persons were shifted to Shahapur Government Hospital for initial treatment. After registering the complaint, police took up the investigation and have filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences referred to herein supra. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses have been recorded. C.W.22-Ravi and C.W.23- Sharanagouda had got engaged to deceased-Bharathi D/o Sharabanna Gouda (C.W.5) and in fact had completed engagement ceremony. However, on account of threat posed by the petitioner/accused as per the statements of C.Ws.22 and 23 said marriage broke down in the year 2009 and 2010 respectively. 4. It is the specific case of the prosecution that motive for murdering Smt.Bharathi and her husband is that petitioner had a love affair with deceased Smt.Bharathi and he had proclaimed that he would not allow her to get married to any person other than himself. 5. Petitioner had approached this Court for being enlarged on bail, by filing Crl.P.No.200077/2016. This Court by order dated 24.02.2016 had rejected said criminal petition. On account of alleged changed circumstances, petitioner is before this Court seeking grant of bail in this petition. 5. Petitioner had approached this Court for being enlarged on bail, by filing Crl.P.No.200077/2016. This Court by order dated 24.02.2016 had rejected said criminal petition. On account of alleged changed circumstances, petitioner is before this Court seeking grant of bail in this petition. 6. It is the contention of learned Advocate appearing for petitioner-accused that majority of the prosecution witnesses have been already examined and only nine official witnesses remains to be examined and the very eye witnesses on whom prosecution has relied upon i.e., C.W.13 as well as C.Ws.22 and 23 having not supported the case of the prosecution, he prays for petitioner being enlarged on bail. 7. Per contra, Sri Mallikarjun Sawakar, learned HCGP appearing for the State would submit that there is no changed circumstances so as to enable the petitioner to seek for grant of bail. He would submit that since 9 witnesses are yet to be examined, jurisdictional Sessions Court may be directed to examine said witnesses within a time frame and only after examination of said witnesses, this court may consider the prayer of the petitioner for being enlarged on bail. 8. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and having perused entire material on record, it is seen from the charge sheet material that deceased Smt.Bharathi along with her husband Sri Gurunathreddy had proceeded to Shahapur on 29.05.2014 for purchase of jewels and while returning at about 7.30 p.m., a cruiser vehicle driven in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and had dashed against the said vehicle and inmates of the vehicle in which deceased were traveling had suffered grievous injuries and on account of said injuries, Smt.Bharathi and her husband Sri Gurmath Reddy expired. The prosecution has relied upon the statement of eyewitness Sri.Chandra Reddy C.W.30 (P.W.27) contending that he had seen the accident which was caused by the accused. He has been examined on behalf of the prosecution as P.W.27 on 20.12.2019 i.e., subsequent to rejection of petition by this Court by order dated 24.2.2016 filed by the accused for being enlarged on bail. In his cross-examination of even date, P.W.27 (C.W.30) has in unequivocal terms admitted that while proceeding to his place Rastapur from Shahapur on the way, he had seen public had gathered near the scene of accident and he further states that 15 minutes prior to his going to the spot accident had occurred. In his cross-examination of even date, P.W.27 (C.W.30) has in unequivocal terms admitted that while proceeding to his place Rastapur from Shahapur on the way, he had seen public had gathered near the scene of accident and he further states that 15 minutes prior to his going to the spot accident had occurred. In other words, his evidence would indicate that he was not at the spot when the accident took place or in other words he had not seen the accident in question. That apart, persons who had accompanied the deceased persons in the vehicle for purchasing the jewels or ornaments was Smt.Kavya C.W.27 (PW 24), has turned hostile during the course of trial and prosecution has cross-examined her on 25.07.2019. She has deposed that after the accident she has lost her memory. 9. Another witness whom prosecution has relied upon is C.W.22 Sri Ravi. He has been examined as P.W.19. Prosecution had relied upon his statement recorded during the course of investigation to contend that he had got engaged to deceased Bharathi; on account of threat posed by accused to C.W.22 - P.W.19, marriage had broken down and as such, it is alleged by the prosecution that accused had motive to take away the life of Smt.Bharathi and her husband which he had proclaimed to execute. Said witness has also been examined and veracity of his statement has to be examined by the jurisdictional Sessions Court. 10. Likewise, P.W.20 (C.W.23) Sri Sharangouda is yet another witness who has deposed on the same lines as that of C.W.22. He has been subjected to cross examination. Both these witnesses have reiterated the statement made before the Investigating Officer. Said evidence has to be evaluated by the jurisdictional Sessions Court. 11. While considering the prayer of the petitioner for being enlarged on bail in Crl.P.No.200077/2016, this Court had prima facie found from the statement of C.W.30 (P.W.27) eyewitness and the evidence of C.Ws.22 and 23 Ravi and Sharangouda, that there were threatening calls received by deceased Bharathi when her marriage had been fixed, as a result, the marriage had broken down. Prosecution had also relied upon the statements of P.Ws.19 and 20 recorded by Investigating Officer to allege malice. Their statements recorded before Court is yet to be tested by the jurisdictional Sessions Court. Prosecution had also relied upon the statements of P.Ws.19 and 20 recorded by Investigating Officer to allege malice. Their statements recorded before Court is yet to be tested by the jurisdictional Sessions Court. All important material witnesses having been examined, there is changed circumstance namely, eye witness having been examined and he not having supported the prosecution, prayer of petitioner for being enlarged on bail has been examined by Court. 12. In the light of aforestated facts, the irresistible conclusion which has to be arrived at is, prosecution has examined the material witnesses namely, 28 witnesses out of 37 and eye witness who was examined as C.W.30 i.e., P.W.27 has deposed that he was not at the spot when the accident took place entitles the petitioner to the relief sought for. In the facts obtained hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner is entitled for being enlarged on bail. To alley the apprehension of the prosecution, it would be apt to impose stringent conditions on the accused for being enlarged on bail. 13. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed. (ii) Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.1 lakh with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Sessions Court and subject to following conditions: (a) Petitioner shall not leave jurisdiction of Yadgir Sessions Court without express permission; (b) Petitioner shall appear before Sessions Court on all dates of hearing without fail; (c) Petitioner shall not threaten remaining nine witnesses. (d) If any of the conditions are violated, prosecution would be at liberty to move for cancellation of the bail.