Hanumesh Nayak vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This is a petition filed by the petitioner-accused No. 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Section 506, 120-B, 109, 302, 201 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 63/2015 and now pending in S.C. No. 49/2015 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Koppal.

Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that, on 11.01.2015 at about 10.10 p.m. a railway passenger informed railway Police, Koppal that a dead body was lying on the railway track. On receipt of such information proceedings u/S 174 of Cr.P.C. were initiated and UDR No. 2/2015 was registered in Gadag Police Station. Requisition was forwarded to the Taluka Executive Magistrate for drawing inquest mahazar proceedings. The proceedings notice is at Annexure-A. The intimation is received as per Annexure-B. During the course of investigation inquest was drawn after securing the presence of the brother of the deceased. Inquest proceedings are as per Annexure-C. Brother of the deceased identified the dead body to be that of his brother Yallalinga. He gave a statement that Yallalinga for some reason must have committed suicide and that he does not suspect anyone and as such any proceedings for investigation would be drawn.

Prosecution case also goes to show that later Smt Manjula w/o Mallappa Jalagudda lodged a complaint before the Police on 18.02.2015 alleging that on 11.01.2015 the Gadag Railway Police have registered a case in UDR No. 2/2015 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. in respect of death of Yallalmga s/o Buddappa Agasimani. She was informed by her younger brother that the dead body of Yallalmga was found on the railway track. She further alleged in the complaint that as she received the information about the death of Yallalmga little late, she came to the said place lately. In the meanwhile one Gudadappa son of Holeyappa Booth, resident of Kanakapur and Ashok Aadappa resident of Huli Haider brought fire woods and in the presence of the family members of the complainant set fire to the dead body of the deceased without giving any sort of suspicion. When the complainant enquired about the same, she came to know that, some days ago the deceased called the media people (Suvarna Sin) and gave interview about the illegal activities of Hanumesh Naik (a rowdy sheeter), resident of Huli Haider and Balanagouda Gyananagouda Goudar. Thereafter on 09.01.2015 in the afternoon one Parashuram Nerasappa Uggi and Balanagouda Gyananagouda Goudar came to the house of the complainant and threatened the brother of the complainant saying that, he (deceased) spoken against Hanumesh Naik (rowdy sheeter). He also questioned that, what he knows about him, what he can do to him and he would have to face the consequences about the same.

On 9/10.01.2015 Parashuram son of Nerasappa Uggi took brother of the complainant to Basirihal village. After coming from the said village brother of the complainant, i.e., the deceased, slept in the house weeping without talking to anybody. Deceased told before one Suma, daughter of Balanagouda Agasimundin, cousin sister of the deceased, that Parashuram Uggi took him two days back to Basirihal village and introduced him to some unknown boys. After that incident he is having apprehension that they will cause something. [Complainant came to know this fact from the said Suma few days after the death of Yallalinga]. Thereafter the deceased went to Gadag saying that his friend called him and he will come back within 2-3 days.

As the deceased did not return, one Mudiyappa telephoned Yallalmga (deceased) over mobile phone. Yallalmga told that he is at Gangavathi and he will come. One hour thereafter, i.e., on 11.01.2015 between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., brother of the complainant, i.e., Yallalmga (deceased), telephoned Kanakagiri P.S.I, Maruti Doddanagouda, Veeresh Saloni, Durgappa Madenahalli, Vinaya Kanakagin and also Police emergency (toll free number) "100" and informed them that, four persons are following him and he is in emergent need of protection.

On that fateful day Yallalinga did not come home even after night. Then, Veerabhadrappa, brother of the complainant, Mudiyappa, brother-in-law of the complainant and village people searched for Yallalmga. Thereafter all of them came to know that a dead body was found on the railway track, they went and saw the dead body and came to know that the dead body is of Yallalmga. At the time of inquest mahazar proceedings the Police have asked about the Yallalmga and asked to give complaint. Complaint was given in hand writing stating that there is no suspicion on anybody. At 9 p.m. postmortem of the dead body was conducted at District Hospital, Koppal. The complainant received the clothes and mobile phone of the deceased from the Railway Police.

The complainant Manjula Jalagudda came to know all these facts from her younger brother Veerabhadrappa. When she asked her brother why he refused to give complaint, he replied that because of fear and non co-operation from the villagers he has not lodged any complaint. It is also mentioned in the complaint that on 11.01.2015 during night in between 7 and 10 p.m. her brother was murdered at some other place, then his body was brought and thrown on the railway tracks in order to screen the evidence. Yallalinga (deceased) left a death note wherein he has mentioned names of two persons. He requested through his mobile number 8151996408 many persons to give him protection saying that there is threat to his life from Hanumesh Naik resident of Huli Haider. Hence, it is presumed that her brother (deceased) was murdered somewhere and body was brought and put on the railway lines.

On the date of the incident and even on the day of giving complaint, mother of the complainant was not feeling well, so it was not possible for her to come to the Police Station. She also stated that because of the non co-operation from the villagers there was some delay in lodging the complaint. Hence, she requested to take action against three persons and also other persons who helped the accused, in accordance with law.

On the basis of the said complaint FIR was registered in Gadag Railway Police Station Crime No. 5/2015 against the accused persons for the offences punishable u/S 506, 120-B, 109, 201, 302 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC. The petitioner in this petition is shown as accused No. 3.

The prosecution opposed the petition by filing objection statement stating that after registration of the UDR No. 2/2015 Gadag Railway Police found the mobile of the deceased. With the help of mobile, the P.S.I. tried to identify the name, residence and relatives of the deceased. In pursuance of the same, one Veerabhadrappa resident of Kanakapura village has identified the dead body. After that, Gadag Railway Police conducted inquest panchanama and mahazar was drawn. Then the dead body was sent for postmortem to the District Hospital, Koppal.

It is further stated in the objection statement that, at the time of inquest panchanama, Gadag Railway Police have found a death note along with the Mobile in the shirt pocket of the deceased. Since one of the relative of the deceased refused to give complaint, unfortunately no complaint was registered in the case as on the date of the incident. But, on 18.02.2015 the complainant-Manjula Jalagudda lodged the complaint narrating the incident. Hence, it is submitted that the prosecution has filed the charge sheet, collected phone call transmission details through FSL to prove that what was the conversation that took place in between the petitioners herein and one Police Constable Shivanand Lamani. The FSL report of phone call transmission clearly goes to show that on the very day before conducting inquest panchanama there was a death note in the pocket of the deceased. Hence, it is contended that there is prima facie material against the present petitioner about his involvement in committing the alleged offences. Hence, she seriously opposed granting bail to the petitioner herein.

I have heard arguments of the learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner-accused No. 3 and also learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned senior counsel submitted that, firstly the UDR was registered by the Gadag Railway Police in respect of the death of Yallalinga. He submitted that even while conducting inquest mahazar proceedings though the family members of the deceased, who were present, they were asked whether they would give complaint or they are having suspicion over anybody. But they refused to give complaint. Then the Police have completed the mahazar proceedings and the body was sent for postmortem examination.

Learned senior counsel drawn attention of this Court to the statement of one Veerabhadrappa son of Guddappa Agasimini, brother of the deceased. In the statement he had stated that his brother was disappointed in life and committed suicide falling on the railway tracks under the running train. In the statement, he states further that they do not suspect anybody for the death of Yallalmga and they do not want to give any complaint against anybody and requested to close the matter. Relying upon this statement, learned senior counsel submitted that Yallalmga (deceased) himself committed suicide and it is not a case of murder as alleged by the Prosecution. With regard to the alleged incident of calling the media people by the deceased and talking against Hanumesh Naik (rowdy sheeter), learned counsel submitted that no satisfactory materials are placed by the prosecution and false and baseless allegations are made in this regard.

Learned senior counsel further submitted that though the family members were present at the time of inquest mahazar proceedings nothing was found. But, subsequently the prosecution came up with a false story that the deceased left a death note mentioning names of the persons who are responsible for his death. In this regard learned counsel submitted that the so-called death note is a created and concocted document. If really it was found with the dead body nothing prevented the Police to make a mention about the same in the inquest mahazar proceedings. Hence, he submitted that, now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed and there is no question of the petitioner-accused No. 3 tampering any of the prosecution witnesses. Since from the date of arrest petitioner is in custody. Hence, learned senior counsel submitted to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused No. 3 on bail by imposing reasonable conditions.

Per contra learned Govt. Pleader submitted that, though the family members were present at the time of inquest mahazar the Police had enquired about they having suspicion against anybody. They also asked as to whether they would give complaint against anybody. But, why the brother of the complainant did not give the complaint and not raise any suspicion, is clearly mentioned in the complaint lodged by the complainant Smt. Manjula. She further submitted that there was a death note with the deceased and was taken by a Police Constable-Shivanand Lamani. He purposely has not produced it before the Police Officer who was incharge of the said case. She further submitted that the said Shivanand Lamani had telephone conversation with other persons in respect of the death note, which is evident from the report of the FSL. Only for the reason that the death note was not produced before the Police Officer who was in charge of the inquest mahazar proceedings it cannot be said that there is no death note left by the deceased.

Learned Govt. Pleader further submitted that the alleged death note was referred to FSL to ascertain the handwriting found in the death note as to whether it is the handwriting of the deceased Yallalinga or not. The FSL report discloses that the death note is in the handwriting of the deceased person. Hence, she submitted that, non-production of the death note at the time of inquest mahazar proceedings would not take away the entire case of the prosecution. Hence, she submitted that the alleged offences are serious in nature and prayed to reject the bail petition.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition and the entire charge sheet materials produced by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Materials go to show that the petitioner-accused No. 3 was a member of Z.P. and his son who is accused No. 4 was given civil contract work by the Z.P. and as the work executed by accused No. 4 with regard to construction of roads, drains and as there was illegality, i.e., collection of money of Rs. 10,000/- for allotment of each house, the deceased called the media people to his village on 06.01.2015. One Vinaykumar (Suvarna Sin Television) came to the said place and the deceased had given interview with the said media person about all the above aspects. This news was telecasted in the television continuously for two days. Because of this reason the petitioner-accused No. 3, his son accused No. 4 along with other accused persons were hatching a plan to finish of the deceased.

Prosecution materials also go to show that on 11.01.2015, i.e., on the date and time of the alleged incident, the deceased called over his mobile phone so many persons including the media person Vinay Kumar and told them that he was followed by 6-7 persons and they will not leave him and they will commit his murder. The said Vinay Kumar as well as one Basavaraj C.P.C. 128 of Kanakagiri asked the deceased to go to the nearest Police Station and inform the Police about the same. Materials also goes to show that the accused made extra judicial confession about committing of the alleged offences and this can be seen with the statement of one Kanakappa.

Gudadappa''s statement goes to show that there was a threat to his life if the complaint is given against the accused persons. Even the statement of one Maruthi also goes to show prima facie that the deceased called him over mobile and informed that he has been followed by 6-7 persons and they will not leave him and the said Maruti asked him to go to the nearest Police Station.

It is no doubt true, as submitted by the learned senior counsel that, while conducting the inquest mahazar panchanama, Veerabhadrappa, brother of the deceased was present. Veerabhadrappa submitted that he did not suspect anybody for the death of his brother and he will not give complaint and requested to close the case.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while conducting the inquest mahazar proceedings there is no whisper about the death note left by the deceased. But looking to the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation more particularly the statement of Shivanand Lamani, Police Constable and the statement of one Tukkappa clearly go to show that the deceased had left a death note. Their statements go to show that the death note as well as the mobile of the deceased handed over to the P.S.I. The statement of one Bangarappa also goes to show that the accused Balana Gouda prevented him to give complaint against the accused persons. As per the statement of Parthasarathi, mobile of accused No. 3 has been seized in the presence of panch witnesses. The note book containing the handwriting of the deceased were seized during investigation by the I.O. Subsequently the death note and also the notebook containing the handwriting of the deceased were sent to FSL. The expert who examined the disputed document and also the admitted handwriting of the deceased examined those materials and he submitted his report. In that connection the I.O. has recorded the statement of Dr. V. Aravindan and his report prima facie goes to show that the handwriting in the death note and the admitted handwriting are of the same person. This prima facie establishes that there was a death note left by the deceased. It is true that, it may not have produced immediately after the inquest mahazar proceedings but the reasons explained by the statement of witnesses about the same.

I have also perused the decision relied upon by the learned senior counsel rendered by this Court in Crl. P. No. 7601/2009 dated 30.07.2009.

Looking to the materials placed on record they goes to show that the present petitioner even earlier also approached this Court seeking his release on bail that is also after filing of the charge sheet and this Court appreciated the charge sheet materials and rejected the said bail application.

The entire charge sheet material including the death note were considered by this Court in the earlier bail petition and this Court by a detailed order dated 04.09.2015 rejected the said bail application holding that there is prima facie case against the present petitioner. But on going through the facts and circumstances in the case and the case on hand I am of the opinion that the said decision will not come to the aid and assistance of the petitioner-accused at this stage. Now there are no changed circumstances narrated in this petition. Hence, there is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, petition is rejected.