Arvind vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This is a petition filed by the petitioner-accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Section 302, 201 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 20/2015.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 28.01.2015 one Ramesh Gulappa Siddannavar resident of Teradal village lodged complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Mudhol alleging that on 28.01.2015 at around 1 p.m. when he was working in the garage received a phone call from Sanju that his brother Balu was lying dead in the field of Ginmallappa Satyappa Hanchmal of Shirol village and the Hero Honda CD 100 motorcycle bearing No. KA29-H-4020 was seen besides the dead body and somebody for some reason have committed murder of his brother with deadly weapons by assaulting on his neck, forehead and head. On the basis of the said complaint a case has been registered firstly against some unknown persons and during the course of investigation the present petitioner has been arrayed as accused No. 1.

I have heard arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 1 and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the entire case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. He also submitted that even looking to the materials collected during investigation will not make out a prima facie case about the involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offences. Learned counsel submitted that, though it is the case of the prosecution that during investigation and after arrest the present petitioner gave voluntary statement and at his instance the iron rod and the bloodstained clothes were recovered.

Learned counsel further submitted that, so far as the blood group is concerned, though the FSL report shows that the bloodstains on the items sent for examination are human blood and they are A'' blood group. But, there is no material to show that the deceased was having A'' blood group. Hence, it is submitted that only on that ground it cannot be said that prima facie material has been placed by the prosecution to show involvement of the present petitioner. Hence, he submitted that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed, by imposing reasonable conditions the petitioner can be admitted to bail.

Per contra learned Government Pleader submitted that though there are no direct witnesses to the incident but the circumstances collected during the investigation by the Investigating Officer clearly goes to show prima facie case as against the present petitioner. She submits that the present petitioner gave voluntary statement before the I.O. At his instance one iron rod and bloodstained clothes of the present petitioner were recovered by the I.O. in the presence of panch witnesses and those items were sent to FSL for examination and report. The FSL has furnished its report.

Looking to the report of the FSL it clearly goes to show involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offences. She also submitted that during the investigation the I.O. has also recovered four promissory notes from the residence of the deceased. Hence, all these materials put together coupled with the opinion of the Doctor regarding the cause of death it makes out a case as against the present petitioner.

She further submitted that, the offence alleged under Section 302 of IPC is a serious offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, she submitted to reject the bail petition.

I have perused the averments made in the petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with the petition.

It is no doubt true at the first instance when the complaint was filed it is mentioned that somebody caused death of the victim and accordingly the FIR was registered as against unknown persons. But, during the course of investigation the I.O. arrested the present petitioner and arrayed him as accused No. 1 in the case. The material collected during investigation also show that he gave voluntary statement before the I.O. and at the instance of the present petitioner the I.O. has seized and recovered the iron rod and also the bloodstained clothes produced by the present petitioner in the presence of panch witnesses and panchanama was also drawn by the I.O. regarding the said seizure.

I have also perused the FSL report. The items sent to FSL are totally 10 in number wherein item Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were belonging to the deceased and item Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are said to have recovered at the instance of the present petitioner during investigation. Looking to the result of the analysis by the FSL, except item No. 2, i.e., sample mud, all other items were stained with blood and the serology report goes to show that the items were having the human bloodstains and the blood group is ''A''.

On perusing these materials and when the investigation materials goes to show prima facie that item Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 belonged to the deceased and item Nos. 8, 9 and 10 were recovered at the instance of the present petitioner at this stage the same is to be considered by the Court not only that investigation material also goes to show that during the investigation the I.O. has recovered four promissory notes from the residence of the deceased and these promissory notes prima facie goes to show the transaction between the deceased and the present petitioner.

As per the opinion of the Doctor who had conducted postmortem over the dead body, gave his opinion that the death is due to the injuries mentioned from sl. Nos. 1 to 5. Therefore, considering all these materials at this stage even though there are no direct witnesses to the alleged incident but the material collected by way of circumstantial evidence during the course of investigation they prima facie show involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offence. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail and the petition is hereby rejected.