Sunilkumar @ Manu vs The Station House Officer

H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioner, who is arrayed as A.1 in S.C. No. 195/2012 on the file of FTC-1, Mandya, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B, 302 r/w 149 of IPC, is before this Court praying for enlarging him on bail. It is the case of the prosecution, the deceased Prathap and A.1 in the case are step brothers. C.W. 8 is the brother of the deceased. C.W. 35 is the brother of the petitioner-A.1. C.W. 9 who is the first wife of C.W. 34 is the mother of C.W. 8 and the deceased. C.W. 36 who is second wife of C.W. 34 is the mother of A.1 and C.W. 35 in the case. According to the prosecution, there were differences between the step brothers and C.Ws. 9 and 36, who are the first and second wife of C.W. 34. A civil suit had also been instituted by C.W. 9 and her sons claiming partition in the property belonging to C.W. 34. Therefore, in this connection there were differences between the two. On account of this, it is alleged first accused along with other accused in the case who are arrayed as A.2 to A. 10 hatched a conspiracy to finish off the deceased on account of the differences that existed as stated to above. Accordingly, it is the case of the prosecution on 14.4.2012 A.2 brought the deceased on his two wheeler from Bangalore to Maddur. The other accused in the case namely A.3, A.5 came on a motorcycle and A.1, A.4, A.6, A.7, A.8, A. 10 came in a motorcar. A.2 stopped his motorcycle near Thalagavadi Hosa road running by the side of Bangalore - Mysore highway. The other accused following the motorcycle also came to the said place. After the accused came to the said place according to the prosecution on account of the differences that existed between A.1 on the one hand and the deceased on the other hand, they committed the murder of the deceased at the said place by assaulting with lethal weapons like, chopper, iron road etc. The present accused came to be arrested by the police during the course of investigation on 20.4.2012.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, the case rests upon circumstantial evidence. According to him, the circumstance that are pressed into service are:--(1) A.2 directing C.W. 44 to inform A.1 that he intends to meet him. This was on 14.4.2012. (2) A.8 bringing the car belonging to C.W. 22 in which A.1, A.4, A.6, A.7, A.8 and A.10 went on the night of 14.4.2012 to the place of the occurrence. (3) motive. These circumstances do not indicate pointing towards the guilt of this petitioner. He further submitted since accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 10 have been granted bail by this Court, as the case of this petitioner does not stand on a different footing than that of the said accused, who have been released on bail, as he is in custody since 20.4.2012 he be released on bail.

Application filed by the petitioner is opposed by the State. The deceased Prathap having died an homicidal death is not in dispute. The prosecution in order to connect the accused with the homicidal death of the deceased according to the counsel for the petitioner have relied on circumstantial evidence. He submits other accused have been enlarged on bail by this Court relying on the very same circumstances that are now relied on against this accused. On a close scrutiny of the papers placed before me comprising of the final report, I find apart from the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner there are other incriminating circumstances which clearly point towards the guilt of this petitioner in committing the murder of the deceased on account of the differences they had between the two. Though submission was made that the statement of C.W. 8 who is the brother of the deceased reveals that the deceased was telling him to square up the matter, that statement of C.W. 8 also discloses that he had not agreed for the same. This petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the deceased on his head with chopper. In view of the material that is now placed on record, which is also fortified from the observation made by the learned trial Judge while dealing with the bail application of this petitioner, since a prima facie case against this petitioner is made out for the offence u/s 302 of IPC, he is not entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, I find no merit in the petition and it is dismissed.