Nandan. H.N. vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B, J.—This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and u/s 3(X) and (XI) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 277/2013. After completion of investigation, the alleged offence u/s 3(II)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 34 of IPC were inserted in the case.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, during the course of the arguments, submitted that there are no direct witnesses to the alleged incident. The case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution materials go to show that petitioner No. 1 and the deceased Ramya @ Sarika were loving each other. Parents of both sides prepared to perform the marriage of the deceased with petitioner No. 1 on 22.5.2013. The learned Counsel made submission that on 21.5.2013, the parents of the deceased purchased gold ring to be given to bridegroom. The learned counsel further made submission that the materials go to show that the deceased left house on 21.5.2013 and in between 21.5.2013 and 22.5.2013, the dead body of the deceased was at compound wall in the CMTI and HMT compound. Two police constables of Yelahanka police station, who were on beat duty, were returning to their house after completion of the said duty. They noticed the said dead body and written report was submitted before the police station about the same. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel that on the next date, there was T.V. telecast about the said incident. On the basis of the said telecast, the police called the parents to the police station and inquest was conducted in the presence of the parents and brother of the deceased. The dead body which was kept in the mortuary of the hospital was identified. He submitted that during inquest mahazar proceedings, there was no whisper against the petitioners regarding the incident. The learned Counsel also submitted that on the next date i.e. on 23.5.2013, the statement of parents as well as brother was recorded and in the said statement, for the first time, they have come up with a story that on 21.5.2013 at about 9.15 p.m., the deceased called her father C.W.10 telling that she is in the company of accused Nos. 1 to 3, who gave juice to her and after consuming the same, she got giddiness. She has also informed her father that she will come to house on the next day. In this connection, the learned Counsel made submission that the phone call details are furnished which are said to have been collected during investigation. But even in the said call details, there is a call at 8.00 p.m. and so far as the statement of the father of the deceased that there was call at 9.15 p.m. is concerned, there is no entry to show that either the deceased called her father or the father C.W.10 spoken to the deceased. The learned Counsel made the submission that according to the statement of father, on 21.5.2013 itself, the deceased made a phone call informing the parents that she is in the company of the accused persons, they gave juice to her and after consuming the same, she got giddiness and she will come to house on the next day. Though the said information was received on 21.5.2013, but when the inquest mahazar proceedings was conducted and their statement was recorded 23.5.2014, the same could have been informed to the police and these are not the matters to be postponed. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted that the materials go to show that the story of the prosecution is afterthought and based on deliberate intention. Hence, he submitted that as there are no directed witnesses to the incident, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the materials collected during investigation go to show that the deceased was in the company of the accused persons. The statement of the accused also goes to show that they have taken the deceased in a car and the said car has been seized. There is statement of owner of the shop that the accused have purchased juice. The learned HCGP also submitted that to show that the deceased was in the company of the accused persons, CCTV footages were also collected during investigation and produced in the case. The materials collected by the investigating officer during investigation are sufficient and they prima facie go to show the involvement of the petitioners in committing the alleged offence. Hence, he submitted to reject the petition.

By way of reply, learned Counsel for the petitioners made submission that mother, father and brother of the deceased had stated that the deceased was having love affair with Mohan Reddy prior to the alleged date of incident. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer has not at all recorded the statement of the said Mohan Reddy or cited him as a charge sheet witness.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer during investigation and the other materials on record.

Admittedly, even according to the case of prosecution, there are no direct witnesses to the incident. The case rests on circumstantial evidence. Looking to the circumstances, one of the important circumstances as per the case of the prosecution is that on 21.5.2013, the deceased phoned to her father informing him that she is in the company of accused Nos. 1 to 3. She has further informed that she had been provided with juice and after consuming the same, she got giddiness and she does not know as to what is to be done. She has also informed that she will come to house on the next day. No doubt, the said information through phone call made by the deceased to her father is one of the important circumstances as projected by the prosecution and after her death, the portion of the statement said to have been made by her to her father becomes dying declaration, but in view of the attending circumstances, the question arises as to whether there is a material placed by the prosecution to show that really there was such a phone call. As per the prosecution case, there was a phone call at 9.15 p.m. The phone call details were secured by the investigating officer during investigation and produced as a charge sheet material. The entries in the call details go to show that there was a call at 8.00 p.m. and there was no entry in the said call details regarding the call made either by the deceased to her father or by father to the deceased at 9.15 p.m. as alleged by the prosecution. With regard to the phone call at 8.00 p.m., the details regarding talk between the deceased as well as the father of the deceased were not furnished. If really, there was such a talk between the deceased and her parents, on the very next day, when the police sent dead body of the deceased to her parents and when the inquest mahazar proceedings was conducted in their presence, the parents could have disclosed the information to the police that on the previous night their deceased daughter spoken to them over phone. But looking to the inquest mahazar proceedings and as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, no such disclosure nor there is any suspicion at that point of time against the petitioners. So looking to all these materials at this stage, it is difficult for this Court to accept the contention of the prosecution that really there was such a phone call from the deceased to her father.

Regarding the other materials said to have been collected by the prosecution and statements of bakery owner and juice shop owner that the accused persons purchased juice and one of the accused put a tablet making it powder in the juice, all these matters to be established during the course of trial proceedings after recording evidence. Looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion, the petitioners are entitled to be granted with bail.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and under Sections 3(X) and (XI), 3(II)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 277/2013, subject to following conditions:-

I. Each petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and shall offer a surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court.

II. The petitioners shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

III. The petitioners shall at tend the concerned Court regularly.