Mayappa vs State

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the both the cases. The petitioners are arrayed as A5 and A7 respectively in Crime No. 135 of 2012 of Raibag Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 302, 504, 506, 120-B read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners'' Counsel submitted before this Court that with regard to the previous motive and ill-will as the deceased Shivappa, was one of the eye-witness to the incident, these petitioners who are the accused in SC No. 104 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum, the complainant and his family members have been falsely implicated these petitioners into the crime. It is also submitted by them that the overt acts alleged against these petitioners does not correspond with the injuries sustained by the deceased Shivappa on looking to the post-mortem report of the deceased. It is also submitted that the complainant Mr. Rakesh who lodged the complaint at the initial stage, later arrayed as A10 in this case. C.W. 7-Smt. Savitha cannot be styled as an eye-witness to the incident and C.W. 9 who is the sole close relative of the deceased cannot be believed at this stage as an eye-witness.

It is also submitted that, considering the surrounding circumstances and the previous ill-will between the family of the deceased and the accused persons, it cannot be over ruled that a false case have been registered against the petitioners. The petitioners have been arrested on 21-7-2013 since then they have been lagging in jail and they are ready and willing to offer substantial surety for their appearance before the Court and pray for a direction of this Court for early disposal of the case. Therefore, for these reasons they pray for grant of bail.

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor strenuously contended that even at the crime stage and after filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioner-Mayappa has approached this Court for grant of bail and this Court considering all the circumstances against the petitioner has rejected the bail.

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor also contended that another accused by name Shivarai S/o. Halappa Kalle, accused 9 has approached this Court for grant of bail, who also stand on the same footing as that of these two petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 100042 of 2014 and by a considered order this Court has rejected the said bail petition on 17-1-2014. He also contended that there is series of murders in the family of the deceased. If the petitioners are released on bail, they would again indulge in committing such type of offences.

He also drew my attention to the statements of C.Ws. 7 and 8 who are the eye-witnesses. Though the complainant was arrayed as accused later, but at the initial stage he has given the details of the incident happened. Even after arraying him as A10, he has given the voluntary statement, in which he has implicated the petitioners as assailants. In the circumstances, he prayed for rejection of the bail petition.

The brief facts of the case are that on 16-5-2012 at about 11.30 pm, the deceased Shivappa was sleeping in front of his house near a electricity starter box. This was very well-known to the complainant, who is arrayed as A10 later. It appears, he informed the accused persons, who planned to commit the murder of the deceased on the said night. The complaint averments also discloses that the complainant and his family members by names Savitha, Shantavva went to the place where the deceased was sleeping on the late hours at 11.30 p.m. and they found the accused persons including these petitioners coming to the said place and all the accused persons have indiscriminately assaulted the deceased. It is specifically narrated that A5-Vasant with axe assaulted on the neck of the deceased and A7-Mayappa assaulted him with an axe on the shoulder and arms of the deceased. Due to which, the deceased sustained severe injuries and later succumbed to the injuries.

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor drew my attention to the statement of the eye-witness. C.W. 7-Savitha as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners has not seen the incident, but she came to know about the incident through her son-A10. However, the statement of Shantavva reveals the overt acts of all the accused persons. Particularly she has stated about the overt acts of these petitioners which exactly tally with the complaint averments. It is also seen from the records that A7-Mayappa approached this Court in Cri. P. No. 11399 of 2013, the observation made by this Court in the said bail petition play an important role. This petition was filed after the charge-sheet is filed, wherein there is a reference to the statement of C.W. 7 in the order by this Court. At paragraph 8 of the order of this Court discloses that the Court has observed that there is sufficient material to describe the overt acts of the petitioners causing deep homicidal injuries to the person Shivappa. Therefore, considering the said fact, this Court has rejected the bail petition of the petitioner-Mayappa. A5-Vasanth has not filed any bail petition after filing of the charge-sheet. But, looking to the allegations made against them, that he assaulted the deceased with axe on the neck and statements of the other witnesses there is ample materials against these two accused persons.

Further, added to that, another accused by name Shivarai S/o. Halappa Kalle, against whom simple allegations are made, also assaulted the deceased with axe on the neck, who stand on the same footing as that of A5 and A7, filed a bail petition and in fact, in Cri. P. No. 100042 of 2014, this Court has passed a detailed order appreciating the materials on record and rejected the bail petition of the accused.

The last limb of the argument of the learned Counsel for A7 is that according to the prosecution case, has assaulted the deceased on the arm of the deceased. The learned Counsel contends that there is no corresponding injury on the dead body of Shivappa, but at this stage, whether the corresponding injury was there or not on the body of the deceased cannot be meticulously looked into. As to which blow actually caused injury on the neck and shoulder of the deceased has to be ascertained only after recording the evidence of the eye-witnesses who have actually seen the incident. In the said circumstances, I do not want to show any leniency when there is strong prima facie case against these petitioners are made out. However, I feel it is just and necessary to direct the Trial Court to expedite the matter and dispose of as early as possible.

With these observations, the bail petitions are dismissed.