Dismissed

Srikanth M v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC27 Jul 2022CRL.A/855/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two criminal appeals filed under Section 14(A) of the SC/ST (POA) Act challenging bail rejection orders. The High Court bench examined the charge sheet, witness statements, and applicability of SC/ST (POA) Act provisions before dismissing the appeals and upholding the lower court orders.操数 read：操数 read：操数 read：操数 read：操数 read：操数 read：操数 read：操数 read：操数 read：操数 read：操数 read：操数 read：操数 read：操数 read：

What did the court decide?

The two bail applications were denied and the appeals challenging the rejection of bail were dismissed upholding the impugned orders.

Srikanth M Vs the State of Karnataka by — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1251 OF 2022 c/w

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.855 OF 2022

¶6

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1251 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

David S/o Chinniah Aged about 31 years R/o. Lakshmipura Near Halo Brick Factory Abbigere, Vidyaranyapura Post Bengaluru-560 057.

¶9

…Appellant

¶10

(By Sri Harish N.R., Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State of Karnataka By Madanayakanahalli Police Station Bengaluru, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings Bangalore-560 001.

¶13

Sri Jayanna G S/o Late Gurumurthappa Aged about 49 years Owner of water tanker R/o. Ashok Kheni Layout Madavara Village

¶14

:: 2 ::

¶15

Dasanapura Hobali Bengaluru-560 073.

¶16

…Respondents

¶17

(By Sri K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP, for R1; Smt. C.Saraswathi, Advocate for Sri B.S. Sachin, Advocate for R2)

¶18

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside the order passed by the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Crl. Misc. No.31/2022 dated 02.02.2022 and grant bail to the appellant in Cr. No.427/2021 registered by respondent no.1 for the offence p/u/s 143,147,148,302,109,120B,150 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act presently pending on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Spl.C. No.903/2021.

¶19

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.855 OF 2022

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

Srikanth M S/o Muniraju K Aged about 28 years R/at No.677, 2^nd Cross Jalahalli Cross Chokkasandra Bangalore-560 057. …Appellant (By Sri K. Lakshmi Kanth, Advocate)

¶22

:: 3 ::

¶23

AND:

¶24

The State of Karnataka by Madanayakanahalli Police Station Bangalore Rural District Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bangalore-01.

¶25

Sri Jayanna G S/o Late Gurumurthappa Aged about 48 years Water tank owner R/at Ashok Kheni Layout Opp. Chakkula Thamma Temple Madavara Village Dasanapura Hobli Bangalore Rural District Pin-560 057. …Respondents

¶26

(By Sri K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP, for R1; Smt. C. Saraswathi, Advocate for Sri B.S. Sachin, Advocate for R2)

¶27

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, praying to set aside the order dated 27.10.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. No.1513/2021 by the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and release the appellant on bail for the offence p/u/s 143,147,148,341,302,109,120B,201,150 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act in Cr. No.427/2021 in Spl. S.C. No.903/2021, pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶28

:: 4 ::

¶29

These Criminal Appeals coming on for orders this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

These two appeals filed under section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are disposed of by a common judgment as they arise from Crime No. 0427/2021 registered by Madanayakanahally Police Station. The appellant in Criminal Appeal 1251/2022 is accused No.1 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal 855/2022 is accused No.2.

¶32

The incident alleged is that on 5.9.2021,

¶33

Kiran Kumar, the son of the first informant namely Jayanna was killed by accused 2 and 3. The motive behind the incident was that the deceased Kiran Kumar had illicit relationship with accused No.4. Then accused No.4 developed contact with accused No.1. The deceased coming to know about the relationship between accused No.1 and 4

¶34

:: 5 ::

¶35

objected to it. Therefore accused No.1 and 4 conspired for eliminating Kiran Kumar which resulted in the incident to take place on 5.9.2021 at about 7.45 AM. The police have now filed charge sheet for the offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 109, 120B, 201, 150 of IPC and section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act read with section 149 IPC. The Special Court by orders dated 2.2.2022 and 27.10.2021 rejected the bail applications of the first and second accused respectively. Hence, these two appeals.

¶36

I have heard Sri Harish N.R, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.1251/2022, Sri K.Lakshmi Kanth, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.855/2022, Sri A.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP and, Smt. C.Saraswathi for respondent No.2 in both the appeals.

¶37

Sri Harish N.R submitted that if the entire charge sheet is perused, the involvement of the

¶38

:: 6 ::

¶39

first accused is apparently not forthcoming. The incident is said to have taken place on 5.9.2021, but the death occurred on the next day. In this view, an offence under section 302 IPC should not have been invoked in the charge sheet. According to the charge sheet, the overt acts are attributed to accused 2 and 3, nowhere accused No.1 is in picture. The FIR shows that the mother of the eye witness was not present at the place of incident,

¶40

but her statement indicates that she is an eye witness. This itself is sufficient to draw an inference that charge sheet is manipulated to falsely implicate accused No.1. There were civil disputes between the family of the deceased and the fourth accused and this was made use of for fixing accused No.1. Looked from any angle, prima facie materials against accused No.1 are not forthcoming and hence the Special Court should have granted bail to him. In this view, this appeal

¶41

:: 7 ::

¶42

deserves to be allowed and accused No.1,

¶43

admitted to bail.

¶44

Sri Lakshmi Kanth argued that one of the

¶45

eye witnesses namely Salauddin is known to the father of the deceased. If really he was an eye witness, when the father and mother of the deceased came to the place of incident, he could have told them that he saw two persons inflicting injuries to their son. The statement of Salauddin is recorded on 23.9.2021 and the statement of another witness Umashankar was recorded on 20.9.2021. There is delay in recording their statements. Therefore inference can be drawn that actually they are not eye witnesses and they have been planted to be eye witnesses. He also argued the deceased was involved in too many criminal cases, somebody might have killed him and accused No.2 has been wrongly implicated.

¶46

:: 8 ::

¶47

Smt. Saraswathi argued that civil dispute

¶48

has nothing to do with the incident of killing Kiran Kumar. The statements of two eye witnesses prima facie establish that Kiran Kumar was killed by accused 2 and 3 at the instance of accused 1 and 4. Blood stained clothes were recovered. Therefore there is ample material indicating the involvement of accused 1 and 2 and hence the appeals should be dismissed.

¶49

I have perused the charge sheet. It appears that the police have filed the charge sheet for the offence under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act merely for the reason that the deceased was a Bhovi by caste. But it is to be noted here that as per the charge sheet accused 1 and 4 also belong to Scheduled Caste. In this view, invoking the offence under section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act is not proper. The charge sheet clearly discloses that the alleged illicit relationship

¶50

:: 9 ::

¶51

between accused No.1 and 4 was the reason for

¶52

the incident to take place. Therefore it was not a caste based attack.

¶53

Examined whether there are prima facie materials indicating the involvement of the appellants, it may be stated that the statements given by Umashankar and Salauddin show that they saw the incident. Their statements disclose that at about 7.45 AM on 5.9.2021, they saw one person inflicting injuries with a knife to the person sitting in the driver seat of the car and thereafter both of them left that place riding their blue colour motor cycle. They also saw a woman by name Savitha wife of Jayanna coming to that place. Umashankar has stated that Salauddin came to that place immediately. Statement of Salauddin indicates that the woman who came to that place identified the deceased to be her son and she immediately went to her house and brought her

¶54

:: 10 ::

¶55

husband. These two witnesses identified accused 2 and 3 in the police station. The statement of the wife of the deceased shows that there was illicit relationship between her husband and accused No.4. It is true that in the FIR it is written that the mother of the deceased was inside the house when the deceased screamed. But in her statement she is projected to be an eye witness. Whether she is an eye witness or not becomes clear only when she is subjected to crossexamination. Likewise, the delay in recording the statement of the eye-witnesses is a matter of appreciation of evidence. Sri Lakshmi Kanth argued that if really Salauddin was an eye witness, he could have disclosed the entire incident immediately to the father of the deceased, but he did not and therefore whether he is an eye witness or not does not become clear. Even this point of argument can be appreciated after recording evidence. At the time of deciding the bail

¶56

:: 11 ::

¶57

application, it is not permitted to examine the prosecution case very minutely. Therefore I am of the opinion that the charge sheet clearly shows prima facie materials being available as regards involvement of the appellants.

¶58

Because the death occurred on the next day, whether the offence under section 302 IPC is attracted or not has to be decided by the trial court after recording evidence. At this stage, motive for the incident is forthcoming. The nature of injuries sustained by the deceased indicate that they were sufficient enough to cause death in the ordinary course. Therefore this line of argument cannot be appreciated.

¶59

So far as accused No.1 is concerned, he has a track of criminal background.

¶60

:: 12 ::

¶61

In the result, I do not find any grounds

¶62

to interfere with the impugned orders. Hence appeals are dismissed.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

ckl/-

Srikanth M v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srikanth M v. the State of Karnataka by

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

Sumanth @ Suman Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Komarla Feeds Vs N Sathish

M. Pradeep Vs K.Anupa

Sri Subramanya Vs Sri.H.v.Yogesh

Smt Supriya Vs the State of Karnataka

David Vs the State of Karnataka