High Court of Karnataka disposed of a bail petition filed by Gutteppa accused in a murder case arising from a dispute over agricultural land. The Court held that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner.
Bail petition of the petitioner, Accused No. 1, was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL
CRL.P.NO.101714/2019
BETWEEN
GUTTEPPA S/O BHIMAPPA KARIBHEEMANNANAVAR AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALVEYYALLAPUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M B GUNDAWADE, ADV.)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD, THROUGH ADUR POLICE STATION.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.I ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.175/2019, ON THE FILE FO THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HANAGAL, FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 302, 504, 506 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This is a bail petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in CC No.175/2019 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hanagal, registered for the offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 324, 326, 504 and 506 read with section 149 of IPC.
with the complainant and her husband’s brother with an intention of killing them. The complainant has further stated that the accused persons assaulted her husband with sickles, club and axe and they also assaulted her husband’s brother with the said weapons and caused grievous injuries to him. Her husband Parasappa had sustained head injury and died on the way to hospital. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondent-police registered the case against accused Nos.1 to 7 for the aforementioned offences.
No.7 has been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. The name of the accused persons as stated in the FIR differs from the accused Nos.4 and 5 stated in the charge sheet. Even the name of the eye witnesses were changed from Basappa Shekappa Karibhimannavar to that of Shekappa Bhimappa Karibhimannavar. There are improvements in the charge sheet filed. The statement of the complainant and Govindappa referred under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., gives different version regarding the assault by the petitioner and also about the presence of accused Nos.4 and 5. Though the civil suit was decreed in favour of the deceased Parasappa, it was not executed and possession of the land was not delivered to Parasappa. The petitioner is ready to abide any conditions which may be imposed by the Court and also to furnish an adequate surety.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
the support the case of the prosecution so far as assault by the petitioner with sickle or axe and thereby the case of the prosecution is diluted. Since the other accused have already been enlarged on bail, the petitioner-accused No.1 is also entitled for bail.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader
opposing the bail petition submitted that the incident mentioned in the compliant is made out. The murder of the deceased is also made out. The weapons namely axe, spade and two sickles were seized at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 6 and that there are two eye witnesses for the alleged incident. The injuries sustained by the deceased are also made out by the PM examination report and the injuries sustained by CW-10-Govindappa are also made out by producing wound certificate. The learned High Court Government Pleader referring to the statement of CW-10-Govindappa submitted that the name of the accused mentioned as Master relates to accused No.1 the petitioner herein.
over the landed property between the accused persons and the deceased and his brother in OS No.141/2017 and it is also not disputed that the said suit was decreed in favour of the deceased Parasappa and his brothers. It is further stated in the complaint itself that the alleged incident took place and the deceased, his wife-complainant and his brother Govindappa had been to the said land for ploughing.
The complainant is none other than the wife of deceased Parasappa. In her complaint, she has made a clear statement that when her husband, herself and her brother-in-law-Govindappa were present in the land, the accused persons came to the land holding axe, sickles and sticks and picked up quarrel with her husband. She has specifically stated that accused No.1-Gutteppa assaulted her husband with axe and the accused persons also assaulted Govindappa with
the said weapons. She has also stated in the
complaint itself that her husband died on the way to the hospital due to the injuries suffered by him and that her brother-in-law-Govindiappa is under treatment. The statement of the complainant and Govindappa recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are material. So far as the complainant is concerned, she has made a clear statement even under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that petitioner-accused No.1 assaulted her husband with axe on his head. However, in her further statement only the changed version is in respect of non presence of younger brother of Renuka. This will not affect her statement so far as petitioner –accused No.1 is concerned. Statement of CW-10-Govindappa recorded under Section 164(1) of Cr.P.C. goes to show that the incident took place as alleged in the complaint. He has also stated about the presence of accused No.1 and other accused persons. However, he has further stated that one Master assaulted his
elder brother, namely deceased, with sickle and rafter. The Learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the statement submitted that the allegation of assault by Master cannot be attributed to the petitioner-accused No.1. Therefore, there is deviation or dilution of the prosecution case so far as the assault by petitioner-accused No.1 on the head of the deceased. Whether the statement of this witness referring the name as Master refers to accused No.1 or otherwise cannot be considered at this stage. It is also necessary to refer that there are two eyewitnesses who have stated in clear terms that the petitioner-accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with sickle. Statement of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also supports the case of the prosecution that petitioner-accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with sickle on his head. The PM examination report produced in the case goes to show that cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage due to head injury.
The statement of the complainant in her complaint and also before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is sufficient to make out a prima facie case of involvement of petitioner-accused No.1 and that this petitioner-accused No.1 who assaulted the deceased with deadly weapon on his head. It is also stated that the weapons namely axe, spade and two sickles were recovered at the instance of petitioner-accused No.1 and other accused persons.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the bail petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Vmb
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving a murder charge with prima facie evidence of involvement.
Whether inconsistencies in witness statements regarding names affect the petitioner's bail entitlement in a murder case.
Whether the presence of a civil dispute over landed property negates the bail claim in a serious criminal offence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gutteppa S/O Bhimappa Karibheemmannavar
State of Karnataka
P.G.M. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
