Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1549 (KAR)

Manjeer v. State of Karnataka

2022-12-02

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed under Sec. 14 (A) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989 by the sole accused in Crime No.20/2022 of Hulsoor Police Station, Dist: Bidar, registered of the offence punishable under Ss. 302 and 504 of IPC and Ss. 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST (P.A.) Amendment Act, 2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondents and perused the material on record. 3. Brief of facts of the prosecution case are that deceased - Prabhakar is a shepherd by profession. The accused was demanding the deceased to give a sheep to him and he was threatening that he will kill him and take the sheep. On 21/3/2022 at about 11.00 a.m. deceased took his sheep for grazing towards Bettabellakunda, along with CW.8 - Jnaneshwar. Accused came to the said place and gave a sum of Rs.200.00 to CW.8 to bring liquor. At about 12.00 noon, CW.8 returned to the spot and saw the accused holding a club and going towards the place where the deceased was grazing the sheep. Accused abused the deceased in filthy language and assaulted him with the club on his head and left shoulder stating that he has not given sheep to him and committed his murder. Thereafter, he threw the club at the spot and ran-away. 4. The learned counsel for appellant has contended that at the time of incident CW.8 had consumed alcohol and he was fully drunk and therefore, the case of the prosecution that CW.8 has seen the appellant assaulting the deceased with a club etc., is not believable. He submits that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the appellant is the only breadwinner in his family and there are no bad antecedents against him. Now the investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed. The appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 22/3/2022. He submits that the appellant is ready to furnish sufficient surety and undertake to appear before the Trial Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that there are eyewitnesses who have seen the appellant committing the murder and in view of the nature and gravity of the offence committed, the appellant is not entitled for the relief sought by him. Hence, he prays to allow the petition. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that there are eyewitnesses who have seen the appellant committing the murder and in view of the nature and gravity of the offence committed, the appellant is not entitled for the relief sought by him. They contend that the appellant is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Hence, they have sought to reject the appeal. 6. I have perused the statement of CW.8. He has stated that the appellant has assaulted the deceased with a club on his head and other parts of the body. The statements of CWs.9 and 11 would also disclose that they have seen the deceased with injuries and the appellant running away from the spot. As per postmortem report the cause of death is due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of ante-mortem injury to head. From the statement of CW.8 it can be seen that appellant has assaulted the deceased with a club on his head which is a vital part of the body, on account of which he succumbed to the said injury sustained by him. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant that since CW.8 had consumed liquor and he was in an inebriated condition, he could not have seen the incident and identified the appellant etc., cannot be accepted at this stage. There is a prima-facie case against the appellant. The offence alleged to have been committed is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The apprehension of the prosecution that in the event the appellant is enlarged on bail, there are chances of tampering the prosecution witnesses, is well founded, since the witnesses and the accused belong to the same village. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is not entitled for the relief sought in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.