Dismissed

Shri.Shantha Kumara S @ S. Shanthakumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2020CRL.P/101031/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail for a petitioner accused of murder. The High Court, rejecting arguments of false implication, denied bail due to the prima facie case and risk of evidence tampering, citing the mother of the accused as the prime witness.

What did the court decide?

Petition for bail dismissed. No waiver of security required at this stage.

Shri.Shantha Kumara S @ S. Shanthakumar Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL.P.NO.101031/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI.SHANTHA KUMARA S @ S. SHANTHAKUMAR S/O VIJAYA KUMARA S. AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK, R/AT: 3RD WARD, NEAR BANDE BHEERALINGESHWAR TEMPLE, RAMASAGARA VILLAGE, TQ: KAMPLI, DIST: BALLARI-583132.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. GOURISHANKAR H MOT, ADV)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KAMPLI POLICE STATION, BALLARI, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶12

¶13

DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD.

¶14

RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT BAIL AND RELEASE THE SOLE ACCUSED IN KAMPLI P.S. IN CRIME NO.0114/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III DISTRICT AND SESSIONS, BELLARI, SITTING at hosapete in s.c.no.5022/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SECTION.302 OF IPC.

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 439 of

¶20

Cr.P.C. by the sole accused in Crime

¶21

No.114/2019 of Kampli Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶23

petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondentState.

¶24

¶25

The case of the prosecution is that, the accused is a chronic drunkard and unemployed. He was residing at Ramasagar village along with his father Soogur Vijayakumar. Accused used to demand money from his father for drinking alcohol and used to pick up quarrel with him. On 11/10/2019 at 8.15 pm, while deceased Soogur Vijayakumar was at home, the accused demanded money for drinking which was denied by the deceased. In turn, the deceased advised the accused to quit his drinking habit as it was not good for health. The accused all of a sudden brought a pestle and assaulted the deceased on his chest and twisted his left hand and again assaulted on his left hand and done him to death.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false complaint has been lodged

¶27

¶28

against the petitioner by his brother who is on inimical terms with him. He submits that the deceased has not died on account of any injuries sustained by him to his chest, on the other hand, cause of death is on account of head injury. He submits that the incident has occurred in the kitchen which is evident from the sketch and therefore, there could not have been any eye witnesses. The statement of the mother has been recorded belatedly and therefore, she cannot be an eye witness to the incident. He submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 12/10/2019. Now investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed and therefore, seeks to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶29

¶30

The learned HCGP has vehemently

¶31

opposed grant of bail to the petitioner and sought to reject the petition.

¶32

The incident has taken place on

¶33

11/10/2019 at about 8.15 p.m. in the house of the deceased. The accused is none other than

¶34

the son of the deceased. The cause of death as per post mortem report is due to shock as a result of head injury. The post mortem report would also disclose that there is a fracture of xiphisternum (central part of the chest), fracture

¶35

of right lower ribs as well as displaced fracture of left humerus at middle part of humerus etc. CW11 is the mother of the accused. She has clearly stated that the petitioner assaulted the deceased with a pestle on his chest, hand in the process, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries to his head. There is a prima facie case

¶36

¶37

against the petitioner. Since the prime witness is none other than the mother of the petitioner, in the event of release of the petitioner on bail, he may tamper with the witness and hamper the case of prosecution. Hence, this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Petition is dismissed.

¶38

If the trial does not conclude within a reasonable time, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Vmb

Shri.Shantha Kumara S @ S. Shanthakumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Shantha Kumara S @ S. Shanthakumar 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

Smt Devawwa W/O Late Komareppa Lingadalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mallikarjun S/O Ramakrishna Hadapad Vs the State of Karnataka

Kanchikeri Manjunatha @ Manjanna @ Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Basappa Kareppa Chandargi, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Venkatalakshmi W/O Late Mallikarjun Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Pooja W/O Raju Talukar Vs the State of Karnataka