IN THE HIGH COURT OF ' C ' CIRCUIT BENCH C - DATED THIS THE 27% I)?gY C124At3CU$T BEFORE 1 THE HON'BLE .R;'i3:;VN1KI:E<I'.H.m CR1M1NAg_._;3__E;r_rr1._ 'Aralflsattxge-Ta},1_1k_:'V I~I__ukkcr1, District. Belgaum. _ " ' 2- ¥3fl~3PPa» e e ' _ ..'S;..' 01..., G13dadap~;2s...!ianami, ' _Age-iiabotyt 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, Taluk: Hukkerl, Belgaum. : Petitioners (By«..Sr1_.' Law Associates, Advocates) '1'he'~~State of Karnataka, ?I'hrough Yamakanmardi Police station, ' Fiepresczxted by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Cimui; Bench, Dharwad. : Respondent
(By Srl. RH. Gotkhlndi, HCGP.,)
I ” ” ‘-2:_f?~f’1VSpOI3(if:4I1i;’ .
This Cram’ inal petition filed U/S. 439¢a~.p.::.;e, she
Advocate for petitioner praying to Ie1ease.__t;h_’e..petitio:1et
bail in crime No.225/2007 of YaI:1aka11:1r§ardi’i3o3ice .station,; A’
district: Belgaum (C.C.No. 554;]; on “the file; of .’t11e*-_ _.
JMFCL, Hukkeri) which is ‘fo;1″–. ,the”.:”ofi’ence
punishable U73. 3433, l47,v144_8, 30’2VI”}’W. ],49’VEP4C. é
These criminal thaiiizgg heard, for
orders, coming on for pi*or1of_un§rei11e_n,1: “of _ order, this day, the
Court made the followi1 1g;.”
AM. is registered on
12. 1O.V21_)O?’:_ police station for ofiences
pu11ishabie’-«U/S.t e143;’~.:47, 143, 302 r/W. 149 IPC, as
v herein and another person on the
Yallappa Patil, the father of deceased
Patil. After completion of investigation,
ejzhe respondent police filed charge sheet for the above said
A Petitioners in the above two petitions have been
” ..__’flazV*’rayed as A-I, A-5, A-6 (petitioners in Crl.P.2215/2008)
V ‘ . A-3 85 A–4 (petitioners in Cr1.P.141 1/ 2008) respectively.
2. Initially the wse was
Shetteppa (A-1), Lakshman Rajaiye ti~;ai) ,;
Ningappa Pujari (not sent for tn}; ‘A J
Pujary (A-5), Ramappa Maiiappas M96); % than
thereafter, after ‘Ve_:’sfléi:emef£ts'”eof”: CW}? and
CW.8, these petitioI1efs:.3_;..,.;.V’;.3;{;cused along with
Bheemappa < ' -4
""" alleged that his son
Ba1ap}C;&.vfvasV land of Lakshman Lagamappa
Pooj_at'_y, fives frequenting to the house of
. I .aga;[1]H fipga Poojari, he had developed intimacy
the wife of Lakshman, as such, the elder
b're1;:heIj?s~'st:jv;i[V'of Lakshman i.e., Ningappa Setteppa Poojaxy
'-swetitioner No.1), Basavanni Settepps Poojary (petitioner
Ramappa Mallappa Poojary (petitioner No.3) warned
deceased Balappa and three montlls prior to the date of
V' complaint, there was a quarrel in the said regard in at
Sandy; all the three accused persons named above were
/%~QW2,\,'\
ginding axe against Balappa; that on 1 1.10.200?'-st~about
8 'o' clock when himself and his son
Setteppa Lagamappa Poojaxy (iét… petitioh.e1'§:
house and told his son that cattle "
Sandy, as such, he son Balappa along to the
house, complainant’ he gave phone
call to his s;m,;;ga1apga, but there
W88 I10 must have gone to
Hidkeoto that on 12.10.2007; the
next dayVV”morniVi1g’4sLf; ‘7 ‘o’ clock, as his son had not
V. ,neh”sea:~c1;m for Balappa, he also went to the
petitioner Setteppa Lawmappa Pujari and
mud was not there and he came to know that
he 3 gone to Shankeshwar Sandy; he suspected
A 57 Eghettappa Lagamappa Pujari might have done harm to his
V’ son and when he was making search for his son, about 100
meters away from the house of Setteppa (A-1), he found
crows howiing around near the said place, he got
‘
suspicious, he went to the said place
body of Balappa at about 8.45
with stone, brain matter
on the legs, the face was e
was removed and it his mobile
phone was fotmd in ‘as such, he went
along with = ‘police station and
lodged a svospecting that Balappa
had V the wife of Lakshtnan
his brother Shettappa
Lagemappe’ and his childxen namely,
« V. Nifigepfia {Hot for trial), Basavanni (A~5), Ramappa
(A~6) together had committed the murder
of A1118 $3311. and as such, action should be taken
egainstvtilem. The complaint was received by the police
p.n1 on 12.10.2007 in the police station located at a
V% -distance of 25 Kms. After receipt of complaint, the police
A V went to the scene of occurrence and held inquest
panchanama between 3« 15 and 4-15 13.111 and at the time
/Oufieuk mg”
of inquest panehanama, it is noticed that _ have
recorded statements of Sathigunda and
Appayya Siddappa P-atil (CWSK7 &_–3) in
statement, for the first time .:\4xz’Iiei91″;;-were ii
returning to the village neaf the of
they heard some soend of of 8- 10
feet, they Went to they saw Shetteppa
Lagamappa Pujaxji [A-i)”,’» ?ujari (A-5),
Ramapfi-1″ present along with
Bheeeiaopad (A-2), Basavanni
Gudadapfia HansuIA1AiV_(‘(A-3), Yallappa Gudadappa Hanami
– , the deceased and they were assaulting
stones, they had removed their shirts and
their pants. The deceased Balappa was
(held ” A-I (Shetteppa Lagamappa Pujari) and his son
Shetteppa Pujari (A-5), Ramappa Mallappa
(A-6) were present along with Bheemappa Ramappa
Ramanakatta @ Motugol (A-2), Basavanni Gudadeppa
Hanami (A-3), Yallappa Gudedappa Hanami (A-4). The
deceased Balappa was held by A-I Setteppa Legeznappa
Pujari and his son Basavanni Shettappa Pojafi “me
ccraccused Yaiiappa Gudedeppat was
named in the orignal eomplaiiat a;1:i’a’;ua;;:.a;5pateete d
Pujari were assaulting
Yallappa Gudedappa the left
side jaw, Ramappa on the left
side jaw, Basafiatmi named in the
oI’*ig’Iia_1 -Bhimappa Ramariakatti who was
aiso not eaaaaaaa said to the other accused
dd: not know how to do away with the life
Viiofadand asked them to make way and they will do
theeinjured Balappa fell to the gonad and
Ba1§ava””–nnV: . i Gudeppa Hanami and Bheemappa Ramanakatti
H ” piclifbdvvwildp a stone slab lying near’ the place and pelted on
at head of Balappa twice.
4. According to CWS. 7 8: 8, the accused persons
saw these two witnesses watching the incident in the
»2£ma,lu.._.
flashhgh’ t of the battexy, they asked mam”-fee
the said piace. As such, CW3.’ “8; AV
they were afiaid, they felt fevefieh_, \vée1;1;t’A’tQ efiieuse
and slept Next day of fine
village talking abotit offi as they
wanted to inform the #0 of the deceased,
the they found he had
already police station to lodge
they informed him about
they heeririg in question.
5.» The geeeeg of the complaint lodged by the
t%1§}ier::jef:A.tfie~:§Ieceased Balappa reveals that he found the
ef his son at about 8.45 am, and only after
the deadbody, in all probabilities, he must have
to the police station along with the scribe of the
__eemp1aint Mahaninga Kelnpanna Patil (CW22) and he in
his statement has stated that on 12.10.2007, people in the
village were talking about murder of Balappa at about 9 ‘o’
)3 fll.u\a,/Llce.
clock and afizer 9 ‘o’ clock himself and V
Went to the police station me dethe’
eompkainant did not know he Vjtize
complaint in the police stafieii; accused
persons named after retum
to the village, they having
witI1essed.tV1%;¢4 of inquest, the said
Witnesses police. Surprisingly,
the M.K. Patil is recorded on
13. 10.2007 date of lodging of the complaint
anedfifid after of inquest panchanama. No
forthcoming as to why there is a deiay in
statement till the next date i,e., on
V -V 13;ee:o.2§o-7%;
dd 6. It is to be noted that cw.7 and 8 claim that they
‘V wldtxave seen the petitioenrs assauiting deceased Balappa
during the night of 11.10.2007 at about 9.30 p.19 and they
have further stated that they witnessed the incident in a
11
flash light ef battery and after seeing the entire of
each one of the accused persons
participating in the incident, the aceusetihh tofgo
away and alter seeing the i11cidet1t,’as J
slept in their house. meeetemee. MK. Pee:
reveals that the news of spread in
the village by 9 ‘o’ and the people
were talking: it after 9 ‘o’ clock,
the 2:”‘%2::”~.:»§ef( the village to go to
W’I’ho1::gh the news of murder
was Jfivillage, CW5. 7 85 8 have not
to the complainant or CW.22 or other
ct;-e1e,;:veet%ef’~ehe complainant about they having witnessed
Further, the version of these two witnesses
the incident in the flash light of the torch, as
V. the accused persons were enacting a drama by allowing
witnesses to oompietely see the entire incident and
V’ then thereafter asking them to go away fiom the said place
appears to be unnatural. Besides the nomexplanation of
12
these witnesses (CW5. 7 & 8) of not h’ 4′
V1!’ lags i:mmed1a’ tely after the incident._o1-A at ;
morning of 12.10.2007 when
already come to know about’the..;nurder ~~.’H.§ to be ‘
unnatuxal. In addition. jgo the eomplainant, the
father of the deceased by him on
12.10.2007 between the
deceased oz} one hand and the
because the accused
Personsvhacié’ deceased was having illicit
intimacy wife of Balappa. If that be
hi” petuii:io1;1e;f__Shettappa Lagamappa Pujari (A- 1)
is hone 4: o’t.l1_er than the brother-in«»law of Ningawwa
of Basappa and asking him to arrange
-for a appears tobe make believe. As such, in
e iaets circumstances narrated above, I hold that
in the above two petitions are emitted for grant
However, it is made clear that the observations
made above are restricted for the disposal of the present
/L;2me,§J<—~