MARUTI Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INDI Police have registered a case in Crime No. 248/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109 r/w Section 34 of IPC against some unknown persons. Subsequently, after investigation, they have filed charge sheet against four accused persons. The present petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 4 in the charge sheet.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution is that one Praveen S/o. Ningappa Acchegaon lodged first information report on 11.09.2014 at about 9.00 p.m. stating that his brother deceased -Santosh @ Basavaraj was doing some business. About fifteen days prior to the date of incident, he had sold his Bolero Jeep and on 10.09.2014 in order to recover the remaining sale consideration amount, he had been to Gulbarga. He came back on the same day at about 10.30 p.m. Again he went on his motorcycle saying that he would like to go to his garden land. As he did not return to the house, his wife Megha and his father told some of the friends of the deceased. In that context, one Chandra Vaghe went in search of the deceased in a car, near Alura road they saw a Tata sumo vehicle capsized on the road side and they also saw the motorcycle of the deceased in a drain with damages. Nearby the road, they also found the dead body of Santosh @ Basavaraj with bleeding injuries to his neck and head. Suspecting some foul play in the death of the deceased, brother of the deceased has lodged FIR stating that some unknown persons with a clear intention to do away with the life of the deceased came in a Tata Sumo vehicle and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased and thereafter assaulted him and caused the death of the deceased. On these allegations, the police have started investigation.

(3.) PERUSAL of the entire material on record discloses that accused Nos. 1 to 3 had grudge against the deceased. There is no such allegation against accused No. 4 that he had also taken loan from the deceased and he had intention to cause the death of the deceased by hatching conspiracy with accused Nos. 1 to 3. Further added to that, it is specifically stated in the charge sheet papers that accused No. 2 has assaulted the deceased on the spot. All these allegations are born out from the voluntary statement of the accused persons. The prosecution wants to connect the petitioner with other accused persons on the basis of the conversation taken place between themselves on the date of the incident. Though there is some material to show that accused No. 4 has also conversed with other accused persons on the date of the incident but what transpired between them has to be established during the course of full fledged trial. There is no material to show that accused No. 4 has joined hands with accused Nos. 1 to 3 prior to the incident or hatched a conspiracy. Accused No. 1 in his voluntary statement has stated that accused Nos. 1 to 3 had decided to do away with the life of the deceased and thereafter, it appears they took the help of accused No. 4 in this regard. Under the above said circumstances, except the telephonic conversation between accused Nos. 1 to 3 and accused No. 4 and the voluntary statement of other accused persons, there are no links to connect accused No. 4. Therefore, it cannot be said with all certainties that there is strong prima facie case made out against accused No. 4. Hence, I am of the opinion that petitioner/accused No. 4 is entitled to be enlarged on bail on certain conditions as the entire case revolves on the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has to prove all the circumstances linking together beyond reasonable doubt in order to bring home the guilt of the accused.