Jairaj vs The State

B.V. Pinto, J.—This petition is filed seeking bail in Crime No. 38/2013 of Chintaki Police Station registered on 04.04.2013 for offences u/s 302 and 120B of IPC.

The complaint is filed by one Smt.Renuka who is the wife of the deceased Prakash. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Prakash was carrying on social work. One Swami Das who is accused No. 1 was carrying the Gram Panchayat work and during the execution of the said work instead of using man power he was using the machines and completing the works, thus deprived people of their livelihood. In this connection there was misunderstanding between the deceased Prakash and Swami Das. It is the case of the prosecution that on ''03.04.2013 at about 4:00 p.m. the deceased had gone to the market place at Wadegaon and while he was returning about 6:00 p.m., he had carried the petitioner Jairaj on his motorcycle. One Shalivan-CW. 13 had seen the petitioner along with the deceased in the motorcycle and when Shalivan asked the deceased to stop the motorcycle, Jairaj the petitioner herein instructed deceased not to stop the vehicle and go ahead. It is also stated that one Simon who is accused No. 3 was also following the motorcycle driven by the deceased Prakash in an auto rickshaw. It is further stated that about 1 km from Wadegaon dead body of the deceased had fallen with the injuries on the stomach near the kidney which was caused by a sharp edged weapon. The wife of the deceased namely the complainant was informed about this and thereafter she went to the spot and found her husband with bleeding injuries. He was shifted to the hospital and the doctor pronounced him dead.

Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has cited CW. 12-Shobha and CW. 13-Shalivan as the witnesses for the last seen circumstance where under the deceased was seen riding along with petitioner much prior to the time of Incident and that there are no other circumstances connecting the deceased with the petitioner. He also submits that there is no enmity between the deceased and the petitioner, since they were found driving together on the motorcycle. He also submits that the statement of CW. 12-Shobha is discrepant in that her statement indicates the reverse direction of the travel of the motorcycle by the petitioner and hence, her statement cannot be believed. It is therefore submitted by him that the petition may be allowed.

Sri S.S. Aspalli, learned HCGP on the other hand submits that CW.13-Shalivan was following the deceased and the petitioner in his auto rickshaw in or about the same time when the alleged incident had happened. Even when CW. 13-Shalivan requested the deceased to stop the vehicle, petitioner did not allow him to stop the vehicle and they went fast. About 1 k.m. from Wadegaon the deceased was found with bleeding injuries on the same day. Hence, in all probabilities it is the petitioner who has caused the murder of the deceased by stabbing him with knife. It is also submitted by him that CW. 12 has also given a statement that she has seen the deceased with the petitioner at or about time of incident driving together. He also submits that CWs. 8 and 9 are the panchas who are witnesses to recovery of jambya at the instance of the petitioner and the said jambya had been subjected to Forensic Science Laboratory examination. Under these circumstances, he submits that there is strong case against petitioner for having committed murder of the deceased. Hence, bail application may be rejected.

CW. 13-Shalivan is an witness to the circumstance of last seen together of the petitioner with the deceased. The time of incident is somewhere about half an hour after the time when CW. 13 saw both the deceased as well as the petitioner together on the motorcycle. CW. 12 also sates that she had seen both deceased and accused together at or about time of incident. There is recovery of the weapon used for commission of offence. The said weapon contained blood stains and same is subjected to chemical examination through FSL. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that there is prima facie case for having committed offence u/s 302 IPC. Hence, petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.