VIMALKUMAR AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent' State. Perused the records.

(2.) Bijapur Rural Police have laid charge-sheet against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and accused Nos.3 and 4. The charge-sheet papers disclose that at the initial stages, the complainant by name Gurujantsing of Indoor lodged complaint stating that he is having a lorry bearing registration No.MP/HG-5521 and one Lakshmansing S/o Amarsing was working as driver and Vivek and Sunil (Accused Nos.3 and 4) were working as cleaners in the said lorry. It is stated that on 15.07.2014, the complainant and the abovesaid three persons were in the said lorry. They loaded the lorry at Torangal to go to Indoor and in fact, on 16.07.2014 at about 11.30 a.m., they came near Gandhi Daba on Solapur Road and parked the said vehicle to take rest. It is further alleged that driver- Lakshmansing and others slept in the lorry and they were taking rest in the lorry. At about 4.00 p.m., the complainant went near the lorry in order to wake up Lakshmansing. In this context, he saw Lakshmansing who sustained injuries on his face, neck and hand and he had breathed his last already. It is suspected by the said person that other two persons i.e., Vivek and Sunil who were there in the lorry at that time prior to the incident must have committed the murder of the said person. On enquiry, he also came to know that said two persons hurriedly went away from the said place in another vehicle. On the basis of such information, the police have registered a case against accused Nos.3 and 4 and started investigation. The investigation papers, particularly remand application, show that these petitioners (accused Nos.1 and 2) were arrested on 01.04.2015 perhaps, on the basis of suspicion. Thereafter, mobile belonging to the deceased was recovered at the instance of petitioner No.1 (Accused No.1). During the course of investigation, it revealed that the deceased-Lakshma-nsing was often eve-teasing the wife of accused No.1 who is none other than sister of accused Nos.2 and 3. This was intimated to accused No.1. In fact, he was not happy with the conduct of the deceased. Therefore, it is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 2 have joined hands with accused Nos.3 and 4, they all hatched conspiracy in order to do away with the life of the deceased. In this context, it is alleged that accused Nos.3 and 4 have joined the job with the owner of the said lorry in which the deceased- Lakshmansing was working as a driver and took an opportunity on the date of the incident and did away with the life of the deceased.

(3.) At this stage, it appears, statement of Vinitha has been recorded by the police. She has stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 were not happy with the conduct of the deceased-Lakshmansing and accused Nos.3 and 4 brothers of said Vinitha have joined job with the owner of the said lorry, except this, nothing is available. Whether there was any conspiracy between accused Nos.1 and 2 with accused Nos.3 and 4 or whether accused Nos.3 and 4 after hearing the said illegal act of the deceased through their sister-Vinitha, they themselves have taken the decision to do away with the life of the deceased and what type of instigation or abetment committed by accused Nos.1 and 2 is not forthcoming from the statement of the said lady. Conspiracy takes place within four corners, that cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, during the course of evidence, satisfactory evidence has to be placed before the Court in order to implicate accused Nos.1 and 2. Their presence was not there at the place of the incident. At the earliest point of time, their presence was not noticed by anybody near the dead body. The police could not trace out the real intention on the part of these accused persons to do away with the life of the deceased for a period of time. The entire case revolves around the circumstantial evidence. Accused/petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have already been arrested on 01.04.2015, since then they have been in judicial custody and as the charge-sheet has been filed, they are no more required for further investigation. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of the opinions that petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions.