Anand vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—M.B. Nagar police laid the charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w. 34 of IPC. The charge sheet discloses that, on 06.07.2014 at about 8.30 p.m., the complainant by name Nagaraj, son of Soogappa Galle, came to know that his employer by name Pramod Kulkarni was assaulted by one Govinda and another. Immediately, at about 9.15 p.m. he came out from the house of his employer Pramod Kulkarni situated at Sahu Shahan Chilla, Near Chalukya Bar, Brahmpur, and he saw Accused No. 1-Govind was proceeding in front of the house with a blood-stained knife in his hand and his clothes were also stained with blood and another person, who was proceeding with him was also wearing blood-stained clothes. Immediately, he rushed near Sha Dhabha and he saw that the dead body of Pramod Kulkarni was lying there with bleeding injuries on his chest and other parts of the face. On the said allegations, the police have investigated the matter.

The records disclose that there are as many as eight eye-witnesses to the incident. They have categorically stated that on the date of the incident, the petitioners herein (Accused Nos. 1 and 2) have started quarrelling with the deceased Pramod Kulkarni near Sha Dhaba and in fact, Accused No. 1 stabbed the deceased with a knife and another accused Anand took-out a stone and assaulted on the face and head of the deceased. In fact, one Mr. Nagaraj and Mr. Digambar, Manager of Sha Dhaba, made attempts to resolve the dispute, but, in spite of that, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have assaulted the deceased and ran away from the spot. The records also disclose that postmortem examination was conducted on the dead body of the deceased Pramod Kulkarni. The Post-mortem report discloses that there was a stab wound on the right part of the chest which pierced through right 3rd rib and right lung measuring 5cm x 2cm x lung deep. Apart from that, the post-mortem report also shows that there was a fracture of nasal bone, fracture of right cheek bone and also there was hemorrhage of both frontal area of brain.

Considering the above said injuries on different parts of the body viz., on the face, head as well as chest, the doctor has opined that the death was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries sustained leading to chordiac arrest.

Looking to the above said facts, though Accused No. 1 used the knife for stabbing the deceased, but other injuries found on the head, nasal area and also brain hemorrhage, at this stage, the materials placed against the petitioners by the prosecution cannot be easily brushed aside. There are many number of eyewitnesses and there is recovery of the articles at the instance of the accused. Therefore, at this stage, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the prosecution has no prima-facie case at all.

The Learned counsel for the petitioners tried to convince me stating that petitioner No. 2 has not caused any grievous injuries or he has not caused any fatal injury to the deceased and it is only petitioner No. 1 who stabbed the deceased, but according to the Doctor, the totality of all the injuries must have caused the death of the deceased. Therefore, such arguments, in my opinion, at this stage cannot be considered, because of the over all factual matrix placed before the Court show that petitioner No. 2 has equally assaulted the deceased on his face and head with stone, which also caused severe injury to the brain.

In the above said circumstances, I do not find any strong reason to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Hence the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

As the petitioners are lagging in judicial custody, it is just and necessary to direct the Trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case as early as possible.