R. GOPAL REDDY Vs. STATE BY ATTIBELE POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., petitioner arrayed as accused No. 1 has sought for an order to enlarge him on bail in connection with case in S.C. No. 299/12 pending before the FTC at Anekal. Petitioner is accused of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 301, 303 of Indian Penal Code. He along with his junior paternal uncle arrayed as accused No. 2 is accused of having committed murder of his father Raja Reddy in intervening night of 27/28.06.12 in the land bearing No. 60/1 of Muthasandra Village, Attibele, Hobli, Anekal Taluk, in the background of the land dispute between the father and the son. 3. According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased and the petitioner herein were found in the land bearing No. 60/1 during the night of 27.6.2012 feeding water to the crop in the land. At about 8.00 a.m. on 28.6.2012, CW 9 -Smt. Muniyamma while proceeding for her coolie work saw the dead body of Raja Reddy lying in the land bearing No. 60/1. Immediately she informed the relatives of the deceased. They immediately rushed to the spot and after seeing the dead body of Raja Reddy, the petitioner herein, the son of the deceased lodged a report at about 10.00 a.m. on 28.6.2012, based on which case in crime No. 163/12 came to be registered against unknown persons and investigation was taken up. Inquest was held over the dead body and later the dead body was subjected to P.M. examination. The Doctor who conducted P.M. examination noticed four lacerated wound, stab wounds and fracture of the skull. The Doctor opined that the death was due to hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab injuries and head injury, fracture of skull and mastoid part of the temporal bone. 3. During investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of CWs 7, 8 and 10 to 12 who were stated to be the circumstantial witnesses and who stated to have seen the deceased in the company of this petitioner in the intervening night of 27/28.06.2012 near the land. On the basis of this evidence, petitioner was arrayed as accused and later he was arrested on 19.7.2012 and at the instance of both the accused 1 and 2 certain weapons, said to have been used in the commission of the offence were recovered. Later the petitioner was subjected to judicial custody and since then he has been in judicial custody. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the matter is pending before the Sessions Court. 4. Petition is opposed by the respondent -State. 5. I have heard Mr. Shankarappa, S, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 6. No doubt, the case of the prosecution, at this stage rests on circumstantial evidence as there are no eyewitnesses to the crime alleged. The contents of the P.M. report and the opinion furnished by the Doctor prima facie indicates the death of the deceased as homicidal. The materials on record would further prima facie indicate that the death of the deceased has occurred some time between 12.00 in the mid night of 27.6.12 and 8.00 a.m. of 28.6.2012. The statements of CWs 7, 8 and 10 to 12, prima facie indicate that the petitioner was seen near the land during the above said period. Thus, the evidence on record prima facie indicates that the deceased was seen alive in the company of this petitioner at or about the time of homicidal death. The materials on record also further prima facie indicate that there was a strong motive for the petitioner to commit the offence. 7. Having regard to the evidence placed before the Court along with the charge sheet, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged. 8. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner stand on the same footing as that of accused No. 2 who has been enlarged on bail has no substance for the reason that this petitioner does not stand on par with accused No. 2. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence as well as the punishment prescribed for the same, I do not find any reasonable grounds for granting bail to this petitioner. Accordingly, petition is rejected.