Dismissed

Mr Chikkamanjunatha @ Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2022CRL.A/1527/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench dismissed criminal appeals seeking bail. The appeals challenged the rejection of bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by four accused charged with murder and atrocities under SC/ST Act. Court found prima facie case and likelihood of witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; bail applications of appellants rejected.

Mr Chikkamanjunatha @ Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1527 OF 2021,

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1529 OF 2021, & CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1943 OF 2021

¶8

IN CRL.A.NO.3 OF 2022

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI GIRISH, S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED 28 YEARS, ARURU VILLAGE & POST, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 562 101.

¶11

... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI NARAYANASWAMY H.R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA GUDIBANDE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

MANJULAMMA, W/O. A.C. RAMANJINEYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AVALNAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 562 101.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

(BY SRI VENKATESH P. DALAWAI, SPL.P.P. FOR R.1; SRI S.R. SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED ON 20.09.2021 SPL.S.C.NO.46/2021 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHIKKABALLAPURA AND ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 447, 114, 109 AND 120B READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(v) AND 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT IN CR.NO.43/2021 OF CHIKKABALLAPURA POLICE.

¶20

IN CRL.A.NO.1527 OF 2021

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

MR. CHIKKAMANJUNATHA @ MANJUNATHA, S/O. GERIGI VENKATAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O. ARUR VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK – 562 104.

¶23

... APPELLANT

¶24

(BY SRI H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GUDIBANDE P.S., REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶27

REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P. MR. VENKATESH DALWAI, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶28

SMT. MANJULAMMA, W/O. A.C. RAMANJINEYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶29

¶30

R/O. AVALNAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK – 562 104.

¶31

... RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI VENKATESH P. DALAWAI, SPL.P.P. FOR R.1; SRI S.R. SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

¶33

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2021 PASSED BY THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA IN CRL.MISC.NO.880/2021, WHERE UNDER, THE LEARNED JUDGE HAS REJECTED THE REGULAR BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING BAIL IN REFERENCE TO CR.NO.43/2021 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 447, 114, 109, 120B AND 149 OF IPC, SECTIONS 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(va) AND 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.43/2021 (SPL.C.C.NO.46/2021) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(va) AND 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 447, 114, 109, 120B AND 149 OF IPC.

¶34

IN CRL.A.NO.1529 OF 2021

¶35

BETWEEN:

¶36

MR. DODDAMANJUNATHA, S/O. GERIGI VENKATAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. ARURU VILLAGE, MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK – 562 101.

¶37

... APPELLANT

¶38

(BY SRI VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.M. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶39

AND:

¶40

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GUDIBANDE P.S., REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,

¶41

¶42

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶43

REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P. MR. VENKATESH DALWAI, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶44

SMT. MANJULAMMA, W/O. A.C. RAMANJINEYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. AVALNAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK – 562 101.

¶45

... RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI VENKATESH P. DALAWAI, SPL.P.P. FOR R.1; SRI S.R. SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

¶47

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2021 PASSED BY THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA IN SPL.S.C.NO.46/2021, WHEREUNDER, THE LEARNED JUDGE HAS REJECTED THE REGULAR BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTIONS 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING BAIL IN REFERENCE TO CR.NO.43/2021 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 447, 114, 109 AND 120B READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC, SECTIONS 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(v) AND 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.43/2021 (SPL.C.C.NO.46/2021) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(r)(s), (w), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.

¶48

IN CRL.A.NO.1943 OF 2021

¶49

BETWEEN:

¶50

AMARANARAYANACHARI, S/O. PAPACHARI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT ARURU VILLAGE,

¶51

¶52

MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 562 101.

¶53

... APPELLANT

¶54

(BY SRI RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE)

¶55

AND:

¶56

THE STATE BY GUDIBANDE POLICE, CHICKKABALLAPUR,, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶57

SMT. MANJULAMMA, W/O. A.C. RAMANJINEYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT AVALANAGAENAHALLI VILLAGE, MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK, CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 562 101.

¶58

... RESPONDENTS

¶59

(BY SRI VENKATESH P. DALAWAI, SPL.P.P. FOR R.1; SRI S.R. SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

¶60

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED ON 01.09.2021 PASSED IN SPL.S.C.NO.46/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHIKKABALLAPURA, ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.43/2021 OF GUDIBANDE POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 447, 109, 120B AND 114 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(va) AND 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 AND GRANT BAIL TO THE APPELLANT BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

¶61

THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.04.2022 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶62

¶63

JUDGMENT

¶64

In these appeals, the appellants are seeking to set aside the impugned order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, in Special Sessions Case No.46/2021 whereby the bail applications filed by them under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. have been dismissed.

¶65

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-State and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant.

¶66

Criminal Appeal No.1527/2021 is preferred by accused No.1, Criminal Appeal No.1529/2021 is preferred by accused No.2, Criminal Appeal No.3/2022 is preferred by accused No.6 and Crl.A.No.1943/2021 is preferred by accused No.7.

¶67

Charge sheet has been filed against accused Nos.1 to 11 for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,

¶68

¶69

2015 (‘SC/ST (POA) Act’ for short) and Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 447, 302, 307, 324, 114, 109 and 120B of IPC.

¶70

The brief facts of the case are that, deceased A.C.Ramanjineya belongs to Bhovi Community, coming under Scheduled Caste. In the year 2017, an extent of 2 acres 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.280 of Aroor village was allotted by the Government to his wife Smt.Manjulamma (CW1). Certain extent of land situated on the Eastern side of the said land was allotted to accused No.3. The said accused had encroached upon the adjacent Government land and he had erected a fence. In this regard, the deceased and his wife had raised objection stating that he has encroached the land reserved for a Graveyard. In this connection, accused No.3 and his uncle-accused No.8 had quarreled with Smt.Manjulamma (CW1) and also threatened with dire consequences.

¶71

Further, there was a land dispute between the deceased and accused No.11 and his children i.e., accused Nos.1 and 2 since 10-15 years. Accused No.11 had filed a civil Suit in O.S.No.39/2009 against the deceased and the deceased had

¶72

¶73

filed O.S.No.6/2011. The suit filed by the deceased ended in his favour and he had even succeeded in the appeal preferred by the accused. Hence, there was enmity between the deceased and the said accused.

¶74

Further, in connection with an incident which had taken place on 19.03.2020, one Venkateshappa had lodged a complaint against accused No.11 and his children and a case was registered in Crime No.57/2020. The deceased was a prime witness in the said case. The accused were of the firm belief that the said criminal case was registered against them at the instance of the deceased and they were grinding an axe against him.

¶75

Further, to the Northern portion of the land of the complainant, the lands of accused Nos.4, 5 and 7 were situated. Accused No.5 had supported accused No.3 to put up stones around the land which was questioned by the deceased and the said accused had quarreled with the deceased and CW1.

¶76

It is the case of the prosecution that on account of the long standing enmity, on 22.03.2021 at about 5.00

¶77

¶78

p.m. when the deceased A.C.Ramanjineya was proceeding on a two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-40-L-485 along with his wife (CW1) to their land bearing Sy.No.280, all the accused who had conspired to commit his murder, formed an unlawful assembly with a common object of committing his murder, trespassed into the said land and assaulted him with the deadly weapons all over his body and committed his murder. Further, they assaulted CW1 with the weapons they were carrying, while she tried to rescue her husband and caused grievous injuries to her.

¶79

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant /accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.1527/2021 has contended that, on account of the civil dispute, a false case has been foisted against the accused. He contends that apart from the civil dispute there is political rivalry between the parties, wherein the wife of the deceased namely CW1 had contested for panchayat elections in the year 2020 and she had lost the said election. Accused were opposing her in the election and therefore to take revenge, the accused are falsely implicated in this case. It is further contended that according to the complainant the incident has taken place in

¶80

¶81

the land, whereas in the spot panchanama, the spot is shown on the road and therefore, there is discrepancy. The learned counsel submits that CW1 was the President of Aroor Gram Panchayat from 2005 to 2010 and she is an influential woman and hence, due to political rivalry she has lodged a complaint against the accused persons falsely implicating them.

¶82

The learned counsel appearing for accused No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.1529/2021 has contended that according to prosecution, CWs.1, 3 to 5 are the eye witnesses, but the material on record would disclose that CWs.3 to 5 came to the spot after the incident took place. He contends that CW1 has given different version in the FIR as well as in her further statement. He contends that CW1 has not at all whispered anything against accused No.2 in her further statement and there is no allegation of instigation or caste abuse by the said accused. He submits that there is no recovery at the instance of accused No.2 and therefore, there is no material against him.

¶83

The learned counsel appearing for accused No.6 in Criminal Appeal No.3/2022 has contended that as per FIR,

¶84

¶85

accused No.6 has assaulted on the left hand and left leg of CW1, however, in the wound certificate the name of accused No.6 is not mentioned. He contends that in view of the long standing civil dispute and political rivalry, accused No.6 has been falsely implicated. He contends that accused No.6 was initially supporting CWs.1 and 15 and later changed the party. Hence, at the instance of CW15, accused No.6 has been falsely implicated.

¶86

The learned counsel appearing for accused No.7 in Criminal Appeal No.1943/2021 has contended that there are no overt acts attributed against accused No.7. He contends that the only allegation against him is that, he made some remarks referring to the caste of the deceased and similar allegations are made against the other accused and their names have been deleted from the charge sheet. He contends that in the further statement of CW1, she has falsely alleged that even accused No.7 has assaulted the deceased with a piece of brick on his head, however, there is no abrasion injury found on the head in the post mortem report and the said brick is also not recovered.

¶87

¶88

11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants

¶89

have also submitted accused No.8, 9 and 11 shown in the charge sheet have been enlarged on bail by this Court. They submit that there are no criminal antecedents against the accused and now investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed and therefore, seeks to enlarge the appellants on bail by imposing any conditions.

¶90

Per contra, the Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State has contended that the accused have committed a brutal murder by assaulting the deceased with lethal weapons indiscriminatingly all over his body, wherein the injuries reflected in the post mortem report shows that they are on the vital parts of the body. He contends that CWs.1, 3 to 5 are the eye witnesses to the incident and they have clearly narrated about the incident and the overt acts of each of the accused persons. He contends that incriminating materials like blood stained clothes, choppers, etc., have been seized at the instance of the accused persons. He submits that from accused Nos.1, 6 and 3 blood stained choppers and from accused No.7 bricks and blood stained shirt have been recovered. He submits that

¶91

¶92

accused No.2 has been absconding for nearly three months and therefore, there is no recovery from him. He contends that now the case is set down for framing charges and at this stage, if the appellants are enlarged on bail, there are all chances of threatening the prosecution witnesses and thereby hampering the case of prosecution.

¶93

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 / defacto complainant has filed statement of objections. He has contended that the appellants are involved in a serious offence of murder which attracts capital punishment. He contends that even CW1 i.e., defacto complainant is also a victim in the incident, who suffered grievous injuries. She was hospitalized for more than three months. He submits that she being the injured eye witness to the incident, there is a threat to her life in the event the appellants are enlarged on bail. He submits that the learned Sessions Judge having considered all the aspects of the case has rightly rejected the bail petitions. He contends that inhuman act of the accused do not deserve any sympathy and there are specific overt acts by these appellants and therefore, there is a prima

¶94

¶95

facie case against them and accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeals.

¶96

The incident has taken place on 22.03.2021 between 5.30 pm and 6.00 pm. The first informant is none other than the wife of the deceased. Complaint is lodged on the very same night at about 10.00 pm. The first informant i.e., CW1 is also an injured witness. CWs.3 to 5 are the other eye witnesses.

¶97

It is relevant to mention that FIR was registered against accused Nos.1 to 12. Accused Nos.7, 8 and 10 named in the FIR were dropped while filing the final report. The allegations against them in the FIR was that they abused the victims using filthy language referring to the caste and threatened etc. Charge sheet came to be laid against nine accused named in the FIR as well as two more accused arraigned as accused Nos.10 and 11.

¶98

The names of the appellants are very much found in the FIR. It is alleged in the FIR that accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted the deceased with choppers indiscriminately all over his body and when CW1 tried to rescue her husband, accused

¶99

¶100

Nos.4 and 5 held her tightly and pushed her to the ground and accused Nos.3 and 6 assaulted her with choppers. Insofar as accused No.7 named in the charge sheet, who is shown as accused No.9 in the FIR, it is alleged that he along with other accused persons abused in filthy language referring to the caste of the victims and also threatened with dire consequences.

¶101

Further statement of the first informant / CW1 was recorded in the course of investigation, wherein she has stated that accused No.7 as well as his children i.e., accused Nos.4 and 5 held her tightly and pushed her to the ground and accused No.7 has assaulted the deceased with bricks on his head. She has also given her statement under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. Even from the said statement the presence of accused No.7 can be gathered at the scene of occurrence, as a member of unlawful assembly.

¶102

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for accused No.2 that, in the further statement of first informant, she has not named accused No.2 and therefore,

¶103

¶104

the said accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated etc., cannot be accepted at this stage. The name of accused No.2 is very much found in the FIR and is shown as one of the assailant who has assaulted the deceased with chopper. Even in the statement of CW1 recorded under Section 164 (5) Cr.P.C., she has categorically stated about the presence and participation of the said accused. She has stated that the said accused assaulted her deceased husband on his head with a chopper. The overt acts of accused Nos.1 and 6 are also clearly spelt in the FIR as well as in the statement of CW1 recorded under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. The eye witnesses have also stated about their overt acts. In both FIR as well as the statement under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C., CW1 has stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 have assaulted the deceased with chopper and she was assaulted by accused Nos.3 and 6.

¶105

The discrepancy, if any, in the FIR and further

¶106

statement of CW1 cannot be weighed at this stage. The presence and participation of the appellants in the crime in question has been clearly spoken by the injured-CW1 as well as eye witnesses namely CWs.3 to 5. The learned Sessions

¶107

¶108

Judge having considered the facts and circumstances of the case has rejected the prayer of the appellants seeking bail.

¶109

A perusal of post mortem report goes to show that the deceased has sustained several injuries all over the body including injuries on the occipital, parital and frontal region. There is amputation of fingers and missing of left ear. The wound certificate of the injured / CW1 reveals that she has sustained several injuries which are mentioned as grievous injuries.

¶110

The contention of the learned counsel for appellants that the appellants are entitled to bail since accused Nos.8, 9 and 11 shown in the charge sheet are granted bail by this Court, cannot be accepted. Accused Nos.8 and 9 shown in the charge sheet are arraigned as accused Nos.11 and 12 in the FIR. In the FIR, it is alleged that while going away after committing the murder, the accused have claimed that they have committed the offence as per the instructions of the said accused persons. Insofar as accused No.11 is concerned, his name is not mentioned in the FIR and even in the charge sheet he is not shown as an

¶111

¶112

assailant. On the other hand, it is alleged that he conspired with the other accused persons. His presence at the scene of occurrence is not spoken by the eye witnesses. Hence, grant of bail to the said accused persons will not enure to the benefit of the appellants.

¶113

The contention of the learned counsel for appellants that in view of the civil dispute and political rivalry, the accused / appellants are falsely implicated also cannot be accepted at this stage. Names of the appellants are found in the FIR. There are specific overt acts attributed against them. The appellants have formed an unlawful assembly armed with lethal weapons and assaulted the deceased as well as the first informant with the said weapons.

¶114

There is a prima facie case against the appellants. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for respondents that, in the event of grant of bail, there is likelihood of threatening the witnesses and tampering the evidence. There are no grounds made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the prayer seeking bail. Considering the nature and

¶115

¶116

gravity of the offence and the reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the appeals are dismissed.

¶117

The observations made in this order shall not influence the trial of the case in any manner.

¶118

Sd/JUDGE

¶119

Mr Chikkamanjunatha @ Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Chikkamanjunatha @ Manjunatha v. 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

Bhadregowda @ Eregowda Vs State by Arakalgud

Naga @ Nagarajau @ Giddanaga Vs the State of Karnataka by

Smt Maniyamma Vs the State by K R Pete Town Police

Thimmesh Vs State by Hebbagodi Police

Sri K Rajendra Prasad Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Doddamanjunatha Vs State of Karnataka