CHANNABASAPPA BASAVANNEPPA BENAKANNAVAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions are heard together, since the petition in Crl.P.10800/2012 is in respect of Accused No.16 in the pending criminal case, who is also a petitioner who has joined the other petitioners in Criminal Petition No.10782/2012. The facts leading upto these petitions are as follows:

(2.) It is alleged that, Accused No.2 Harishchandra Gowda, Accused No.3 Devaraj, Accused No.7 Ashoka Gowda, Accused No.8 Santosh Gowda, Accused No.9 Dyamana Gowda, Accused No.10 Rohit Gowda, Accused No.17 Shridhar, Accused No.18 Balasaheb, Accused No.21 Chandrashekar Gowda are all relatives and residents of Karadikoppa village and they belong to a particular political party. The deceased Shivappa Ryavappa Maleppanavar belonged to a rival political party. He was elected twice to the Grama Panchayat and was the President of the Karadikoppa Grama Panchayat. It was stated that Shivappa was engaged in settling the disputes amongst the villagers. He would bully people to settle the disputes in the terms he suggested, without regard to the legality for such settlements. It is alleged that he used to harass people and would lodge complaints against the villagers and used to threaten them with their life when they did not listen to him. He had gained notoriety in the political field and had also managed to acquire huge properties. He was tipped to contest the MLA constituency on behalf of the party to which he belonged, from Kundagol. Accused No.2 Harishchandra Gowda also carried a grudge against the deceased. In addition to that, Shivappa by moving a 'no confidence motion' against the Accused No.1 Lakshman Hubballi who was the Vice- President of the Grama Panchayat, as a result of which he had lost the post, there was grudge against him by Accused No.1. Shivappa was also interfering in the family properties of Lakshman Hubballi. Therefore, the enmity gathered by these acts against the deceased was apparent and similarly, Accused 1, 4, 5, 6, 11 to 16, 19 and 20, had all suffered in the hands of Shivappa and therefore, had the motive to commit the offence punishable under Sec. 302 in having murdered him. It is alleged that the accused had joined together, conspired to commit his murder and in this regard, had purchased a Maruti van from one Shakeel Ahammed (CW-39) in the name of Accused No.7 Ashok Gowda. Accused No.6 Fakeerappa was a licenced owner of a single barrel gun and Accused No.21 was a licenced owner of a double barrel gun. These weapons were given to Accused No.10 Rohit Gowda and Accused No.3 Devaraj and they had arranged through Accused No.20 one Ismail, to disconnect the power supply to the village as pre-arranged. On that very day, at about 8.45 p.m., the deceased Shivappa was relaxing on a katte under a neem tree where there was a house under construction, along with his followers namely Moulasab, Mounesh, Iranna and Khasimsab. The accused, it transpires, had come in the Maruti van and Accused No.17 Shridhar was said to be driving the vehicle, Accused No.18 Balasaheb was sitting on his left side, Accused No.1 Lakshman was sitting between them, Accused No.6 Fakeerappa was sitting facing towards the back of the vehicle. Accused No.10 Rohit Gowda and Accused No.3 Devaraj who were in the front seat of A-6, were holding loaded guns and when they went near Shivanna who was sitting on the katte, the electricity was switched off and the headlights of the maruti van were focussed on Shivappa directly and at that point of time, Accused No.10 had fired on the right side chest of Shivappa with his single barrel gun, causing a fatal injury and thereafter the maruti van was driven away at speed and the used cartridges were destroyed. It is therefore alleged by the complainant who was the nephew of Shivappa that, he witnessed the said incident and had arranged to shift the injured to hospital and had also informed the Hubli Rural Police that Shivappa had succumbed to injuries at the hospital and then on the next morning, that a written complaint was lodged with the Hubli Rural Police, who in turn registered a case in Crime No.17/2012. The police after having completed investigation, submitted a chargesheet for the above offences. It is in this background that the petitioners had approached the court below seeking grant of bail, which has been refused and hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for Accused No.16 in Crl.P.No.10800/2012 is heard. The learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.10782/2012 would submit that insofar as the petition also filed by him on behalf of Accused No.16 is withdrawn in the light of the learned counsel Shri Gundawade appearing for the said accused.