Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HONBLE Dr.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15197/2013

BETWEEN:
1.

HANAMAPPA S/O ADAPPA GODEYAR


AGE:28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O BENASIGADDI, TQ. SHORAPUR
DIST. YADGIR

2.

AMARAPPA S/O ADAPPA GIRANI


AGE:25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O BENASIGADDI, TQ. SHORAPUR,
DIST. YADGIR

3.

BALAPPA @ GOUDAPPA S/O DURGAPPA YELGUNDI


AGE:35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O BENASIGADDI, TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIR

4.

SHIVAPPA S/O MUDEPPA POLICE PATIL


AGE:35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O BENASIGADDI, TQ. SHORAPUR
DIST. YADGIR
... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. AVINASH A UPLOANKAR, ADV)

AND
THE STATE THROUGH KODEKAL PS
DIST. YADGIR
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.S.S.ASPALLI, HCGP)

CRL.P FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR


THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT TO
RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO: 46/2012 OF
KODEKAL POLICE STATION DIST: YADGIR (S.C.NO: 107/2012),
WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER
Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 facing charge for
the principal offence under Section 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC
in S.C.No.107/2012 on the file of the District & Sessions
Judge at Yadgir.

2.

Accused are

in

judicial custody and seek bail

therefrom.

3.

Sri.S.S.Aspalli,

learned

Government

opposed bail through detailed counter.

Pleader

has

4.

Heard, Sri.Avinash A. Upaloankar, learned counsel

for the petitioners and Sri.S.S.Aspalli, learned Government


Pleader. Perused records. It reveals:
One Jatteppa lodged the report at the jurisdictional
police station that his father Somanna was done to death
by 11 persons including petitioners herein.

Report was

registered on 28.06.2012 and during investigation several


persons are examined. It reveals, Somanna along with his
daughter and sons had gone to attend a function in the
house of Shivappa. Nagappa and complaints sisterManjula returned home but Somanna stayed back.

On

29.06.2012 at 6:00 a.m., he received information that


somebody had killed their father and body was lying. He
rushed to the spot and found several injuries.
Case was registered in Crime No.46/2012 and
investigation

commenced.

In

all

11

persons

were

mentioned in the report but Investigating Officer found


from

the

statement

of

several

witnesses

that

only

petitioners herein were involved and other persons named

in the complaint were not involved. This is on the basis of


eyewitness account given by CW.2-Yamnappa. According
to him he saw the first petitioner-Hanamappa taking the
deceased along with him by force and later on he followed
them. He continued to watch them hiding at a place. He
noticed that the first accused assaulted deceased with axe
on the neck, while petitioners 2, 3 and 4 caught hold of his
hands and immobilized him.
Based on the statement of Yamnappa, the inspector
dropped charge against the others.

He also examined

CW.8, 11 and 12 who claimed to have seen the first


accused taking the deceased with him.

Therefore, their

statement is taken as circumstantial evidence.

5.

Post mortem report has confirmed death of Somanna

was due to fatal injuries caused to the neck by axe. Thus,


prima facie there is sufficient material to indict the first
petitioner-Hanamappa as the author of the injuries which
resulted in death of Somanna. As far as petitioners 2, 3

and 4 are concerned, they are said to have held the victim
in the tight grip facilitating attack by the accused No.1.

6.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

such statement given by CW.2 Yamanappa is 6 days after


the incident and the delay itself shows concocted version is
given by him to falsely implicate the petitioners.

7.

In negation of these grounds, learned Government

Pleader would contend that case is not only based on


eyewitness

account

of

Yamanappa,

but

also

on

circumstantial evidence through CW.9, 10, 11 all of whom


have seen the petitioners at the spot. CW.2 has seen the
incident and described it as in vividly and therefore they
are not entitled to bail.

8.

Considering the facts discussed above, I am satisfied

that so far as first petitioner is concerned, there is


sufficient material indicting him as offender causing death
of Somanna with brutality. As far as petitioners 2, 3 and 4
are concerned, overt act attributed to them is, they caught

hold of the deceased and immobilized him. No doubt their


overt acts will amount to abetment, but as could be seen
the eyewitness-Yamanappa has given statement 6 days
after incident but has also explained that he was under
fear and only when accused are arrested, he thought
giving complaint.

9.

In the circumstances, I find grant of bail to first

petitioner is not justified.

His petition is rejected.

Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are admitted to bail subject to


following conditions:
a)

The petitioners 2, 3 and 4 shall execute a


bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each with
one solvent surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate or if
the case is committed to the Sessions
Court, to the Sessions Judge;

b)

They shall report to

the

jurisdictional

police station till framing of charge, once


in 15 days i.e. on Saturday between 7.00
a.m. and 7.00 p.m.;

c)

They shall not tamper with prosecution


witnesses or influence them in any manner
by inducement or threat; and

d)

They

shall

not

leave

the

Session

jurisdiction without prior permission.


The petition is partly allowed in the above
terms.

Sd/JUDGE
sdu