SHANKRAYYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellants- accused Nos.2 and 3 challenging the order dtd. 14/7/2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.390/2022 by the learned II Addl. District and Sessions & Special Judge, Dharwad, (hereinafter referred to as 'Sessions/Special Judge', for short), whereunder bail application of the appellants filed under Sec. 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Cr.P.C .', for brevity) seeking regular bail in Crime No.77/2022 of Garag Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 201 R/w Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ' I.P.C .', for brevity) and Sec. 3 (2) (va) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. (hereinafter referred to as the 'SC & ST (P.O.A.) Act' for brevity) came to be rejected.

(2.) Heard learned counsel Shri A.M.Malipatil, for the appellants and Shri Prashant V.Mogali, learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.2-complainant remained absent and unrepresented.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that, one Irappa S/o Rudrappa Doddamani resident of Timmapur village of Dharwad taluk has filed a complaint stating that his sister Kasturevva got married to one Ramappa Kelagade (deceased) of Hangarki village and they have two female children. It is further stated that the said Kasturevva had illicit relationship with one Hanumanthappa Jummanavar-accused No.1 since 4 years and due to the same, her husband was addicted to alcohol and he used to harass his wife and children, after consuming alcohol. The Hanumanthappa- accused No.1 had given some money to deceased Ramappa as advance and kept him for work into his Grain Machine. That on 16/5/2022, the Ramappa's brother wife has called to his mobile and told that the Ramappa was suffering from stomach ache. Therefore, the complainant called the said person and when enquired, she was told that Ramappa died and his funeral will be at 11-00 p.m, in Hangaraki village. Thereafter, the complainant and elders of the village went to Hangaraki village to attend the funeral, at that time, the 2 n d daughter of his sister namely Sonu aged about 13 years came over to complainant and told that his father was murdered. Then the complainant has asked his sister regarding the cause of death of Ramappa, but she was not disclosed anything and he was not allowed to go near Ramappa's dead body and hurriedly dead body was taken to burial ground. When the dead body was on funeral pyre then also not allowed the complainant to see the dead body properly and poured kerosene and set fire. After seeing all this when complainant asked his sister, she told that when Ramappa was not been to work, accused No.1- Hanumanthappa came over to their house and took the Ramappa to work by scolding and bearing him. At about 5:00 p.m, accused No.1- Hanumanthappa came and told that her husband Ramappa was suffering from stomach ache and need to take him to hospital and asked her to come. Therefore, she and her husband's brother Shettappa and Kareppa together went in accused No.1-Hanumantappa's vehicle. When they reach near Kelageri, they found her husband was unconscious and further she said that her husband died near Kelageri bridge while going to the hospital. She also requested the complainant to leave this mater and stated that if the incident is disclosed the villagers will not allow her to lead her life. After inquiry in the village, the complainant suspected the death of Ramappa and therefore, he filed a complaint and the said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.77/2022 for the offenses punishable under Ss. 302, 201 R/w Sec.34 of IPC and under Sec. 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act. The appellants/accused Nos.2 and 3 came to be arrested on 14/6/2022 during the course of investigation and they are in judicial custody. The appellants filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.390/2022 seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by learned Sessions/Special Judge vide order dtd. 14/7/2022. Therefore, the appellants/accused No.2 and 3 have challenged the said impugned order in the present appeal.