Basalingappa vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offence punishable under Sections 109, 143, 147, 148, 302, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 65/2014.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that one Kumar S/o. Panchayya Mathapati of Halalli Village lodged the complaint on 19.03.2014 alleging that he and the deceased were proceeding in motorcycle towards Halalli when they came near Artal Cross, a Cruiser vehicle overtook the motorcycle and stopped at Teslang cross. When the complainant came near the land of one Basu Kali, a green coloured new unnumbered tractor with trailer came from opposite side driven by accused No. 1 with accused No. 2 by his side and accused Nos. 3 and 4 and other in the trailer and dashed to the motorcycle, the complainant and his uncle fell down, at that time, the Cruiser stopped at the spot with its headlights on, other accused in the trailer and the Cruiser got down and instigated accused No. 1 to murder the complainant and his uncle Malakayya and not to spare them. Accused No. 1 drove the tractor over this complainant and deceased, the complainant could escape by hanging to the engine and running in the sugarcane field. Said Malakayya died at spot with several injuries, the complainant took shelter in the night in a hut and next day, informed his father over phone and noon at 1.00 o'' clock, complainant lodged the complaint, on the basis of which case has been registered against the petitioner and others for the alleged offence.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 1 and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the say of the complainant, who claims to be the eyewitness and injured witness. Even according to the complaint averments, there was a civil dispute in the Court in respect of the land property pertaining to the deity. Looking to the number of persons alleged to have been involved and when they alleged to commit the murder of uncle of the complainant, they could have easily finish of the complainant also and there was no hurdle or difficulty. This incident is because of falling on the vehicle on which they were moving and not as narrated by the complainant in the complaint. Learned counsel has further submitted that the conduct of the complainant is to be appreciated that when such incident has taken in his presence, but the averments of the complainant shows that he went to the hut of one person but, the name of the said person is also not mentioned. He took shelter and woke up next day morning and then, after having deliberations and discussions with the members of the family, who are to be arrayed as accused, complaint has been lodged at 1.00 p.m. against the petitioner and others. Hence, it is after thought and deliberated act on the part of the complainant and his family members because of the civil dispute that was going on. Hence, he has submitted that materials will not make out a case that petitioner has committed the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Investigation of the case has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. Hence, he has submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned HCGP has submitted that complainant is the injured eye-witness and he has clearly narrated in the complaint itself the manner in which the incident has taken place. The PM report also shows that there was a fractured injury over the skull of the uncle of the complainant Malakayya and totally there are 10 injuries sustained by the deceased. She has further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, petitioner was driving the tractor and alleged that he dashed the motorcycle of the uncle of the complainant and made them to fell on the ground, then, they have run the tractor on Malakayya and also caused injuries to the complainant. Looking to the charge sheet material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, it makes out prima-facie case about the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence. So far as the conduct of the complainant and the delay in lodging the complaint, learned HCGP has submitted that, it is alleged in the complaint that they chased the complainant at a distance of 1 K.M., because of the life fear, he took shelter by running into a hut, if he had come out, definitely, he would have finished off and that was the reason for the complainant to take shelter in the hut. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is an intentional delay on the part of the complainant. Hence, submitted to dismiss the petition.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and all other materials produced along with the petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so also entire charge sheet material made over by the learned HCGP.

Looking to the averments in the complaint, the complainant is also the injured witness, it is clearly mentioned in that complaint that when complainant and his uncle were proceeding on their two wheeler vehicle, the petitioner herein came with the tractor trailer in the opposite direction and run over the deceased Malakayya by causing injuries over his head and the other accused persons, who were in the tractor were instigating the petitioner not to leave the deceased. The materials also show that the tractor, which is said to have been driven by accused No. 1 was seized during the course of investigation by the IO and the said tractor was having the blood stains.

I have also perused the PM report. The doctor, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of Malakayya, has mentioned that deceased was having 10 injuries and also mentioned that skull shows depressed comminuted fracture right side occipital region and irregular blood clots were present and he has given his final opinion that the death was due to hemorrhage and shock, as a result of injuries sustained over head, chest and abdomen.

Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is delay in lodging the complaint and it is a deliberated act on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner and the other accused persons because of the land dispute, but the prima-facie materials produced by the prosecution collected during investigation shows that complainant is the injured eye-witness in the incident. Looking to the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were said to be ante-mortem in nature. The offence alleged under Section 302 of IPC is a serious offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, hence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner and to release him on bail. Accordingly, petition is rejected.