Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 648 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MR. DINESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O CHARKU RAM, RESIDING AT TATA ESTATE LINE HOUSE, GABGAL VILLAGE, BALUR HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 122. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHWIN JOYSTON KUTINHA, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally THROUGH BALURU POLICE STATION, signed by LAKSHMI T REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Location: HIGH COURT BUILDING, High Court of Karnataka BENGALURU - 560 001.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHI, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL CONDITIONALLY PENDING TRIAL IN S.C.NO. 34/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 AND 201 OF I.P.C. R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU WHICH IS REGISTERED IN PURSUANCE OF CRIME NO. 49/2023 OF BALUR POLICE STATION. -2-
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
ORAL ORDER
This petition is preferred by accused No.1 to enlarge him on bail in S.C.No.34/2024 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, arising out of Crime No.49/2023 of Balur Police Station, Chikkamagaluru.
2. Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, both accused
Nos.1 and 2 hail from sagli village, Jharkand. About 4 years prior, accused No.2 married one Chattubytta and from their wedlock, they have a 3 year old child by name Shivakumar. Since her husband was addicted to alcohol, accused No.2 had deserted his company and she was residing along with her son in her parental home in sagli
village. About 6 months prior to the date of incident, -3- accused No.1 brought accused No.2 and her son Shivakumar to the TATA Coffee Estate in Balur and they were staying together in a house situated in coolie line.
4. It is the case of prosecution that, accused No.1 was having an apprehension that if the child was alive, he
cannot marry accused No.2. Hence, on 18.12.2023 at about 1.00 p.m., he took the child inside the estate and strangulated him with an intention to commit murder. Thereafter, he returned to the house and informed the matter to accused No.2, who went in search of the child and found that child was still alive. Thereafter, she brought back the child to the house, gave a bath and changed his cloths. Once again, accused No.1 took the child in the guise of taking him to the hospital and strangulated the child and committed murder.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that, initially UDR was registered and there are discrepancies in the UDR statement and the statement's of CW.5 - Nagamma, who has allegedly seen the accused -4-
taking the child to the estate. He contended that even accepting the statement of CW.5, the only inference which can be drawn is that the child could have been taken to the hospital by the accused as it was found unconscious and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed the murder. He contended that the evidence of CW.5 is already recorded and his evidence does not incriminate the accused and not sufficient to establish the
charges levelled. He therefore contended that the petitioner, who is in judicial custody from 21.12.2023, may be enlarged on bail by imposing conditions.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader has
opposed the prayer for bail contending that there are sufficient materials collected by the prosecution which prima facie shows that the petitioner has committed the murder. He contended that CW.5 has seen the petitioner carrying the child and as per post mortem report cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. He contended that the petitioner being a permanent resident -5- of Jharkand, if enlarged on bail, may flee from justice and thereby hamper the case of prosecution.
7. On the basis of a report submitted by the PSI,
Balur Police Station, Chikkamagaluru, initially UDR was registered under Section 174 (c) of Cr.P.C. As per the said UDR report, one Karumbaiah - Manager of Estate was informed by Tangavelu - CW.8 that the child of the accused is lying unconscious in the estate. Certain injuries were also noticed on the hand of the child. When the parents of the child were enquired, they informed that initially when the child was found unconscious, they brought back the child to the house and gave bath to the child. The child was then taken to the hospital, wherein the doctor after examination declared the child is dead.
8. As per post mortem report, the cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. The injuries noted on the dead body were ante mortem in nature and fresh at the time of death. -6-
9. I have perused the statement of CW.1 -
Karumbaiah and CW.5 - Nagamma. Their statements would disclose that, after the child was brought back to the house, petitioner/accused No.1 once again took the child in the guise of taking to the hospital. When the child was initially brought to the house, it was alive, subsequently when it was brought back by accused No.1, the child was unconscious. As per post mortem report cause of death is due to throttling. Hence, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner. Trial is in progress. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there are chances of fleeing from justice. Hence, this is not a fit case to enlarge him on bail.
10. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE AMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49 CT: BHK