Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 206 (KAR)

Mahantesh v. State of Karnataka

2024-03-11

ANIL B.KATTI

body2024
JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner/ accused filed the present petition U/s 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in connection with the case registered in Kundagol P.S. Crime No. 98/2022. 2. Parties to the petition are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. Heard the arguments of both sides. 4. After hearing arguments of both sides and on perusal of the records, the following points arise for consideration. i) Whether petitioner /accused is entitled for grant of bail in terms of Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C.? ii) What order? 5. On the strength of the complaint filed by Mahantesh son of Dilleppa Havanur criminal law was set into motion by registering the case in Kundagol P.S. Crime No. 98/2022 for the offences punishable U/s 302, 354A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The investigating officer after conducting investigation has filed the charge sheet. The accused is in judicial custody from the date of his arrest on 19/8/2023. 6. The complaint allegations would go to show that his step- sister Sunanda was given in marriage with Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai and out of wedlock they have two children by name Niranjan, 17 years and Naveen, 15 years. There was property dispute between Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai and his uncle Neelappa Yallappa Menasinakai over partitioning the family properties. In the said partition Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai had got 3 acres 3 guntas of land and Neelappa Yallappa Menasinakai got 4 acres 4 guntas of land. Complainant with his father and elders of the village advised to get partition of the properties equally. Mahantesh Neelappa Menasinakai was following the victim and threatening so also sexually harassing deceased Sunanda. Complainant informed the said fact to her husband Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai, but he expressed his inability to interfere. When the said Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai was advised to file police complaint, refrained himself from filing complaint on the pretext of family prestige. Complainant and his father Dilleppa Havanur on 6/9/2022 had been to Narayanapura village for Ganesh festival and for convening meeting of elders to advise Mahantesh Neelappa Menasinakai. When they were in the said village, on 8/9/2022 at about 1.30 p.m. accused by means of sickle assaulted on Sunanda with his other members of the family and threatened persons who went to pacify the quarrel. When they were in the said village, on 8/9/2022 at about 1.30 p.m. accused by means of sickle assaulted on Sunanda with his other members of the family and threatened persons who went to pacify the quarrel. On these allegations made in the complaint the case was registered in Kundagol P.S. Crime No. 98/2022 for the aforementioned offences. 7. The records produced by the petitioner would go to show that complainant has given further statement dtd. 9/9/2022 that cousin of Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai, i.e., Mahantesh Neelappa Menasinakai, for the last 8 years was having illicit relationship with deceased Sunanda and residing in Kuruvinakoppa village. The deceased Sunanda was not amenable to advice of the complainant and elders to join the company of her husband Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai and continued her relationship with accused. About six months back prior to the filing of complaint, deceased Sunanda by leaving Kuruvinakoppa village and the company of accused came to Nadigatti village of complainant. About a week prior to the filing of complaint, complainant with his father and elders by advising the deceased Sunanda, left her to Yerinarayanapura village to lead marital life with accused. 7(a). On 8/9/2022 at 12.30 noon brother in law of complainant Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai over phone informed the accused by means of sickle has assaulted on Sunanda and she is shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi in ambulance as she sustained grievous injuries over her neck. He further disclosed that while he was in the house, his son Niranjan came and informed that in front of the house of Mahadevi Hugar while deceased Sunanda was proceeding on the road, accused being armed with sickle assaulted on her neck and she is lying in the pool of blood on the road. He further stated that when his mother Udachamma, Chandrappa Betadur, Mahadevi Hugar went to rescue Sunanda, but the accused threatened them of killing. On the basis of allegations made in the complaint and also in the further statement of the complainant, the accused is involved in this case. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that complainant has given the complaint as if he is an eyewitness to the incident, whereas further statement of the complainant would go to show that he is not an eyewitness and he got information from Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai over phone while he was in the house. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that complainant has given the complaint as if he is an eyewitness to the incident, whereas further statement of the complainant would go to show that he is not an eyewitness and he got information from Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai over phone while he was in the house. The statement of eyewitnesses, CWs.13 to 16 cannot be relied as they are interested witnesses. The allegations made in the complaint and further statement of the complainant even remotely does not make out any case against the accused for the offences alleged against him. 9. Per contra, learned HCGP has argued that case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of eyewitnesses-CW13 to CW16. The mere fact that the said witnesses are interested witnesses, cannot be a ground to grant bail to the accused. The postmortem report of deceased Sunanda would go to show that she has suffered as many as 11 injuries and her death is due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of injuries sustained. The mere filing of the charge sheet and the accused being in custody cannot by itself a valid ground to grant bail to the accused. 10. It is true that on the basis of complaint allegations filed by Mahantesh Dilleppa Havanur, his further statement recorded on the next day, i.e., on 9/9/2022, would go to show that complaint is filed as if he is a witness to the incident. Whereas the further statement of complainant dtd. 9/9/2022 would go to show that he came to know about the incident from his brother in law Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai over phone while he was in the house. The said fact alone cannot be a valid ground for grant of bail. The other material evidence placed on record by the prosecution will also have to be taken into consideration. The allegations made in the complaint, the further statement of the complainant, so also the statement of eyewitnesses-CW13 to 16 would go to show that deceased Sunanda was having illicit relationship with accused for about 8 years and she was residing in Kuruvinakoppa village. About six months back prior to filing of the complaint, she left the company of accused and Kuruvinakoppa village, further she started residing in Nadigatti village. About six months back prior to filing of the complaint, she left the company of accused and Kuruvinakoppa village, further she started residing in Nadigatti village. The complainant and his father with elders about one week prior to filing of the complaint by advising deceased Sunanda left her to the matrimonial home in Yerinarayanapur village, to lead marital life with Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakayi. The records would further go to show that deceased was no more interested in continuing her relationship with accused. 11. Learned counsel for accused invited attention of the Court to question No.10 of the inquest panchanama wherein it is stated that at present there are no witnesses. However, CW13 to 16 are projected as if they are the eyewitnesses to the incident in question. The statement of CW13-Udachamma, CW15-Chandrappa, so also CW16-Mahadevi came to be recorded on 14/9/2022. The statement of CW14-Niranjan, son of the deceased and the husband of the deceased CW17- Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakayi came to be recorded on 9/9/2022. Just because the statement of the aforementioned witnesses recorded on different dates after the inquest panchanama cannot be a ground to hold that CWs.13 to 16 have not witnessed the incident in question. 12. The charge sheet materials and the statement of the aforementioned witnesses would go to show that deceased Sunanda was in the company of accused for about 8 years in Kuruvinakoppa village. Thereafter, about 6 months prior to the incident she left the company of accused, so also the village Kuruvinakoppa and came to reside in Nadigatti village. The deceased Sunanda on the advise of complainant with his father and elders left to the house of matrimonial home in Yerinarayanapura. The statement of CW13-Udachamma, CW14-Niranjan and that of husband of deceased, Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakayi, would go to show that deceased Sunanda was residing with them in Yerinarayanapura village. The mother in law of the deceased, CW13-Udachanna, CW14- Niranjan, son, CW15-Chandrappa would go to show that the incident in question took place in front of house of Mahadevi wherein the accused by means of sickle has assaulted on Sunanda due to which she succumbed to the injuries sustained in the incident. 13. The postmortem report would go to show that deceased Sunanda has sustained as many as 11 injuries over her head and other places. The cause of death is due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of injuries sustained. 13. The postmortem report would go to show that deceased Sunanda has sustained as many as 11 injuries over her head and other places. The cause of death is due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of injuries sustained. The repeated assault of accused by means of sickle on the neck, ear and head, has resulted into the death of Sunanda. The said repeated assault by means of sickle prima facie speaks about the intention of the accused in causing the death of Sunanda since she abandoned the company of the accused and joined her matrimonial home. Therefore under these circumstances, some inconsistent statement of complainant as referred above itself cannot be a ground to doubt the statement of eyewitnesses, CWs.13 to 16. The postmortem report would substantiate the cause of death due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of injuries sustained. Therefore, the mere fact of filing the charge sheet and accused being in custody by itself cannot be a ground to grant bail. 14. In view of the reasons recorded as above, accused is not entitled for bail. Consequently, proceed to pass the following order. ORDER Petition filed by the petitioner U/s 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.