Sri. Karuna Kumar @ Kumar vs The State of Karnataka

H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioner, who is the sole accused in CC No. 6/2013 on the file of the JMFC, Nanjangud registered for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 465, 471 of IPC, is before this Court praying to enlarge him on bail. It is the case of the prosecution, the petitioner and the deceased Veda Murthy were friends and were working together and were dealing in sheet work. The petitioner in order to rob money from the deceased told him that they shall take a petrol pump on mortgage for which purpose he was investing Rs. 9 lakhs and he should invest Rs. 6 lakhs. Accordingly on 11.12.2010 the deceased took a blank cheque duly signed by his wife in respect of the account maintained by her and came to Nanjangud along with the accused. At Nanjangud, the wife of the deceased, namely, Kavitha was informed that the deceased is in the company of the accused. Thereafter the accused brought the deceased on his motor cycle to the land belonging to CW 25 situated on Nanjandug - Mysore Road and at the said place he told the deceased that the petrol pump is going to be started in the said land and owner of the land is coming in a short time. Thereafter, the accused and the deceased slept in a watchman shed built in the said land. While they were sleeping in the said shed on the intervening night of 11th and 12th of October 2012 at about 1.00 am the accused is alleged to have committed murder of the deceased by throwing a stone on his head and thereafter in order to cause disappearance of the evidence of the murder committed by him to screen himself from legal punishment took the clothes of the deceased and mobile and threw the same into the river. Apart from the same he also took the blank cheque which was duly signed by CW 6 wife of the deceased, came to Bangalore and by making forgery in the name of one Lokesh drew an amount of Rs. 95,000/- from Vijaya Bank. Thus he has committed afore mentioned offences.

The learned counsel for petitioner contends the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. The only circumstances according to prosecution is deceased having been seen in the company of the accused on 11.10.2012 as intimated to CW 6, wife of the deceased. Except this there is no other material pointing out towards guilt of the accused. In so far as the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which has been recovered from the possession of the accused he submits the deceased had handedover the cheque with an instruction to draw the amount and give it to CW 6. Therefore, the petitioner had drawn that amount and before he could pay it to CW 6 that amount has been recovered from him. He is in custody since 08.11.2012. The charge sheet is filed and case is to be committed to the Court of Sessions. Hence, he be released on bail.

The application filed by the petitioner is opposed by the State. The statement of CW 6, wife of the deceased, reveals she was informed on 11.10.2012 that her husband is in the company of the accused. Thereafter, the body of the deceased is found in the watchman shed put up in the land of CW 25 on 17.10.2012. In the interregnum the accused has drawn the amount of Rs. 95,000/- from Vijaya Bank at Bangalore by using the blank cheque which was duly signed by CW 6 and handedover to her husband. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the deceased himself had handed over the cheque to the petitioner with an instruction to draw the amount and pay it to his wife, the said amount as per prosecution has been drawn from the bank on 16.10.2012, nearly about 5 days after the occurrence. If according to the petitioner cheque had been given by the deceased with an instruction to draw the amount and pay it to CW 6, there were no reason for him to draw the amount on 16.10.2012 and keep it with him till he was arrested by the police on 08.11.2012. This circumstances itself is sufficient to hold that he is the culprit in the commission of the murder of the deceased. Further in view of the statement of CW 6 which goes to show that deceased was in the company of the accused on 11.10.2012, which circumstances also points towards his guilt, in the circumstances, since prima facie case is made out for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC, this is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and it is dismissed.