Tanaji vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Zalaki Police have laid charge sheet against the petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos. 2 to 4 in C.C. No. 698/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 201, 109 r/w Section 149 of IPC.

The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are:

"A person by name Dattatreya Rokade S/o. Amasidda Rokade has lodged first information report on 31.07.2014 narrating the facts that his brother Shivamurthy was often visiting the house of accused No. 1 and also closely talking with the wife of accused No. 1, which created some problem in the house of accused persons and they were suspecting the conduct of Shivamurthy-brother of the complainant. This suspicion spread throughout the village. Therefore, the complainant had advised the deceased-Shivamurthy not to talk with the said Renuka Pujari-wife of accused No. 1. In this background, the accused persons were nurturing ill-will and hatred against the deceased. On 02.07.2014 the deceased-Shivamurthy had been to jewoor village on his motorcycle along with one Dundappa Budihal and since that date, he was missing. In fact, the complainant had lodged missing complaint before Zalaki Police. After few days, on 31.07.2014 at about 5.00 p.m. he received some information from one Mallikarjun that when the said Mallikarjun and one Dilip were proceeding near the land of accused they observed some dogs were scratching mud in the land and the complainant immediately went near the same and saw one dead body lying underneath the earth and one leg was exposed surfacing the earth. Suspecting the same, he lodged complaint on 31.07.2014. In fact, the police came to the place and recovered the dead body of Shivamurthy and Dundappa in the land of accused No. 2 and thereafter, started investigation. The motive factor alleged is that Shivamurthy had close relationship with Renuka Poojari and the accused persons due to that reason have committed the murder of the deceased Shivamurthy and Dundappa." 3. The dead body was not recovered at the 00instance of the accused persons but it was recovered on the information given by the complainant in the land of the accused. Though some recovery is made at the instance of the petitioners like spade and other things, but at this stage, there is no reason to connect those weapons to the incident and the same has to be proved by the prosecution during the course of full dressed trial. It appears, except the voluntary statement of the accused that they have committed the offence, there is no other evidence connecting link. Though some of the witnesses have stated that subsequent to the incident, the accused persons were talking with each other that they have committed the offence but at this stage, whether it amounts to extra judicial confession by the accused and whether it is sufficient to draw inference that the accused have committed the offence, that has to be trashed out during the course of full dressed trial. The postmortem examination report of deceased-Shivamurthy shows that he died due to asphyxia as a result of compression over neck and as the body was completely decomposed, the date of death was not ascertained by the doctor who has examined the dead body. The postmortem examination report of deceased-Dundappa shows that he died due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of injury sustained over neck. The prosecution has to establish how the injured persons have sustained those injuries and how actually the deaths have occurred and what is the role of accused by means of proving the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Under the above said circumstances, particularly, when the case depends on the circumstantial evidence, in my opinion, depending upon the nature of the circumstances, the Court has to exercise power under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, except the voluntary statement of the accused; statement of some witnesses that the accused persons after the incident were talking with each other on the road that they have committed the offence and recovery of some spade and dead body in the land of the accused, no other materials are available. Therefore, in my opinion, at this stage, mere suspicion is not sufficient to reject bail to the accused/petitioners. Hence, petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions.

Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in connection with C.C. No. 698/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 201, 109 r/w Section 149 of IPC, subject to following conditions:

"i) The petitioners shall execute personal bonds for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with two solvent sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Committal Court.

ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The petitioners shall appear before the committal Court as well as Trial Court on all the future hearing dates unless prevented by any genuine cause.

iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without its prior permission, till the disposal of the case on merits."