Allowed

Basawaraj S/O Goudappa Gouda and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2016CRL.P/200306/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to three petitioners charged with murder under IPC Sections 302, 201 and 34. The court held that the case relied on circumstantial evidence and uncorroborated extra-judicial confessions were not sufficient to deny bail at the initial stage.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners released on bail subject to executing surety bonds, not tampering with witnesses, appearing on dates, and not leaving jurisdiction without permission.

Basawaraj S/O Goudappa Gouda and Ors. Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH 2016

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.200306/2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

Basawaraj S/o Goudappa Gouda Age: 20 Years, Lingyat, Agril R/o Jangamarahalli Village Tq. Manvi

¶10

Chandrashekhar @ Chandra S/o Chaannabasayya Gaddimath Age: 23 Years, Occ: Electrician R/o Byagwat, Tq. Manvi now at Padmavathi Feros Pvt. Ltd. Chikka Antapur, Near Kuditini Village Tq. Sandur, Dist. Bellary

¶11

Goudappa Gouda S/o Hanumangouda Age: 24 Years, Lingayat Agril Occ: Student R/o Jagamarahalli Village Tq. Manvi now at Huda Village Tq. Sindhanur

¶12

… Petitioners

¶13

(By Sri Ishwar Raj S. Chowdapur, Advocate)

¶14

¶15

And:

¶16

The State of Karnataka Through Rural Police Station Sindhanur, Tq. Raichur Represented by Addl. State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka At Kalaburagi Bench

¶17

… Respondent

¶18

(By Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar M., HCGP)

¶19

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.169/2015 of Rural Police Station Sindhanoor (C.C.No.36/2016) pending before JMFC Sindhanoor, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 along with 34 of IPC.

¶20

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The police have laid a charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC in C.C.No.36/2016 on the file of JMFC Court, Sindhanoor.

¶23

¶24

The brief allegations as could be seen from the

¶25

entire charge sheet papers are that.-

¶26

Petitioner No.1 is the son of the deceasedGoudappa Gouda. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the cousin brothers of petitioner No.1. They are all residents of Jangamarahalli village. It is alleged that father of petitioner No.1 by name Goudappa Gouda S/o Ningana Gouda was suffering from AIDS disease and due that reason, his wife was not co-operating with him for sexual activity and for that reason, he was often beating his wife and children and also threatening members of the family that he will sell away the family properties for his vice habits. Being frustrated by the conduct of said Goudappa Gouda, all the petitioners have joined together and conspired themselves to do away with the life of the deceased-Goudappa Gouda. In this background, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 took the deceased along with them on 22.02.2015 to a

¶27

¶28

Dhaba called Karatagi Dhaba and made him to consume alcohol and thereafter, they took the said Goudappa gouda to the land in Sy.No.42/3 situated near Huda border and dropped a big size stone on the head of the said Goudappa Gouda and committed his murder and thereafter, in order to suppress the evidence against them, they threw the dead body in a pond situated near the land of CW.1-Pasha Patel of Mavina Madugu village by tying a big stone to the waist of the deceased.

¶29

The learned High Court Government Pleader has brought to my notice that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the accused have admitted their guilt before the police in the presence of some of the prosecution witnesses and it amounts to an extra judicial confession. He has also brought to my notice that CW.12-Huligesha who is the Manager of Red Chilly Restaurant is the person who has last seen the

¶30

¶31

deceased and accused together and CWs.13, 14 and 15 are the persons who have spoken about the movements of accused Nos.1 to 3 prior to the incident and he has also submitted that accused persons have given their voluntary statement and they have shown the spot where they have committed the murder and threw the dead body etc.

¶32

On careful perusal of the above material on record, it would disclose that there is nothing in the statement of CW.12-Huligesh to show that the police have collected any photographs of the deceased and shown to him to ascertain whether the deceased was with the accused persons at that time. CWs.13, 14 and 15 have never stated that they have seen the deceased and the accused together at any point of time, they have only spoken about the movements of the accused persons. The extra judicial confession statement appears to have been made before the police cannot be

¶33

¶34

considered as gospel truth. Therefore, I am of the opinion that when the case is based on circumstantial evidence, it should be shown to the Court that the circumstances are so strong which connect the accused persons in such a manner that they are sufficient to refuse bail to the accused persons on plain looking to the charge sheet papers. In the absence of that, in my opinion, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt during the course of trial. Hence, at this stage, petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶35

Hence, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

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.36/2016 pending on the file of JMFC Court, Sindhanoor, for the alleged offences, on the following conditions:

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

NB*

Basawaraj S/O Goudappa Gouda and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basawaraj S/O Goudappa Gouda and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh S/O Shivasharanappa @ Sharanappa Herur Vs the State of Karnataka

Sakkubai W/O Mallikarjun Parandekar and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka through

Srishail S/O Neelappa Karikal Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhagappa S/O Chandramappa Devarmani Vs the State through

Syeda Faqarunnisa Begum Vs State of Karnataka

Siddanna @ Siddanrao S/O Manikrao Deshmukh and Ors. Vs Basayya S/O Bommalingayya @ Bammayya Hiremat