THIMMEGOWDA Vs. STATE BY HASSAN RURAL POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are accused 1, 2 and 3 together charged for principal offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which was investigated in Crime No. 214 of 2009 and after Investigation final report has been filed. Petitioners being in the judicial custody seek bail.

(2.) The prosecution case is that Thimmegowda got his daughter married to Suresh (deceased). But his daughter suffered set back in health and in fact was mentally indisposed. He had spent substantial amount for her treatment and asked Suresh to bear part of the expenses. Suresh declined, but the treatment continued at the heavy cost. This led to quarrel between father-in-law and son-in-law. It is urged that on 24-10-2009 when Puttegowda- complainant, his son Suresh were in the residence, Thimmegowda along with his nephews Ravi and Manjunatha went to their house and picked up quarrel. Thereafter, Papegowda alias Papanna, Ravi and Manjunatha dragged Suresh upto the manure pit. The complainant- Puttegowda and his family members followed them. In his presence, it is alleged that accused 4 and 5, Ravi and Manjunathp restrained movement of Suresh. Thimmegowda dropped stone on the head of Suresh while petitioner 2 with a chopper caused grievous injury. Petitioner 3 hit the victim with wooden bar. In this manner, they caused injuries to Suresh to which he succumbed.

(3.) From the narration of the incident given by the eye-witnesses, there is sufficient material to show that Thimmegowda- first accused, Dore-second accused had assaulted the victim and nexus between the assailants and death is noticeable. However, as far as accused 3 is concerned, he is alleged to have hit at the limbs of the deceased with ripper. In similar circumstances, accused 4 and 5-Ravi and Manjunatha who had been initially arraigned along with these petitioners, have been enlarged on bail perhaps because they were not attributed with any overt act in causing injuries which were likely to be homicidal in nature. Thus, petitioner 3 could be treated as similarly placed as accused 4 and 5 and on that ground he would be entitled to some consideration.