Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 866 (KAR)

Rakshit P. v. State Of Karnataka

2020-05-13

K.S.MUDAGAL

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.46/2019 of Bagalagunte Police Station. Accused No.2 is the child in conflict with law. Hence, he is tried separately before the appropriate Court. Petitioner is charge sheeted in the said case for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of IPC. 2. Petitioner and the deceased Dayasagar were studying in II PUC in Soundarya college within the jurisdiction of Bagalagunte police station. Dayasagar suffered stab injuries on his neck on 30.01.2019 in the toilet room of the fourth floor of his college building. He was shifted to the hospital, but was declared brought dead due to the said injuries. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner and the deceased Dayasagar were interested in CW.26 and therefore, they had rivalry over that. In that background, it is alleged that on 30.01.2019, he secured the victim through the child in conflict with law and stabbed him in the toilet. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 30.01.2019. 4. Sri Hasmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri K.B.K.Swamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner on record submits that in the remand applications dated 31.01.2019 and 06.02.2019 and the statements of CWs.29 and 30 there is no reference to CWs.22, 24 to 27, that creates doubt about they being the eyewitnesses. He further submits that there is delay in recording the statement of the eyewitnesses and the mahazar and content of CC TV footages are not incriminating against the petitioner. 5. Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Raneef (2011)1 SCC 784 and Shafhi Mohammad v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (2015)7 SCC 178 he submits that petitioner is in judicial custody since 30.01.2019 and in the present situation the trial may be delayed, having regard to the age of the petitioner he may be extended the benefit of bail with suitable conditions. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that there is sufficient material against the petitioner including the statements of eyewitnesses. He submits that having regard to the gravity of the offence and the fact that the eyewitnesses are college-mates of the petitioner, it is not a fit case to grant bail. 7. The statements of CWs.22, 24 to 27, the eyewitnesses are purportedly recorded on 31.01.2019, 01.02.2019, 02.02.2019 and 03.02.2019. He submits that having regard to the gravity of the offence and the fact that the eyewitnesses are college-mates of the petitioner, it is not a fit case to grant bail. 7. The statements of CWs.22, 24 to 27, the eyewitnesses are purportedly recorded on 31.01.2019, 01.02.2019, 02.02.2019 and 03.02.2019. Therefore, non-reference to them in the remand application dated 30.01.2019 cannot be blown out of proportion. 8. Remand Application dated 06.02.2019 refers to the eye witnesses. CW.29 and CW.30 do not state that they were present at the scene of offence. Therefore, they not speaking about the presence of the eyewitnesses has no relevance. 9. It is submitted that images of the CC TV is recorded in a pen-drive and produced before the Court. Whether that contains the presence of eyewitnesses and the accused is a matter of trial. The judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was rendered after full fledged trial. Therefore that cannot be justifiably applied at this stage. Delay in the trial is not imputed to the prosecution. Therefore the judgment in Raneefs case also cannot be justifiably applied to the present case. 10. The case is based on the evidence of the eyewitnesses. Having regard to the gravity of the offences and the material on record, it is not a fit case to grant bail. The petition is dismissed.