Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 959
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (KALABURAGI BENCH)
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.
Marenna @ Mareppa - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 200315 of 2020, 200318 of 2020
Decided On : 21-07-2020
Nandkishore Boob, Advocate, Mallikarjun Sahukar, Advocate, Rajesh Doddamani, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the gravity of the alleged offences and the rights of the victim and their dependents under the SC/ST Act, including the right to participate in proceedings and receive legal assistance.
Headnote:
Bail - Attempt to Murder - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the gravity of the offences alleged under the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act, emphasizing the use of a deadly weapon and the abusive language with reference to the caste of the victim and the first informant. The court also highlighted the rights of the victim and their dependents under Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act, including the right to participate in proceedings and receive legal assistance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions were filed by the accused seeking bail in a case involving the assault of a minor belonging to a Scheduled Caste. The prosecution alleged that the accused, including the petitioners, attempted to murder the minor using a deadly weapon and abused him with reference to his caste.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a prima facie element of sharing common intention between the accused in furtherance of the alleged offence. It emphasized the gravity of the offence and the potential threat to the victim and their family if the accused were released on bail.
Issues: The issues included the delay in lodging the First Information Statement (FIS), the gravity of the alleged offences, and the rights of the victim and their dependents under the SC/ST Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in lodging the FIS may not always undermine the prosecution case and that the gravity of the offence and the potential threat to the victim and their family were crucial factors in denying bail. The court also emphasized the rights of the victim and their dependents under Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act.
Final Decision: The court rejected the bail petitions, considering the gravity of the offence alleged and the potential threat to the victim and their family if the accused were released on bail.
JUDGMENT
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. - Crl.P.No.200315/2020 is filed by the petitioner / accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C and Crl.P.No.200318/2020 is filed by the petitioner / accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge them on bail.
2. Since both the petitions arising out of same Crime i.e., in Crime No.72/2020 of Shahapur P.S., they are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this common order.
3. In nutshell, prosecution's case as per FIS is as under;
It is stated by the first informant, Smt. Tarabai, who is the mother of the injured (minor son) of 14 years old that she is having two female and two male children, among them, the injured was studying in 8th Standard when the alleged incident (now going to be stated) was occurred. It is alleged that on 28.02.2020, the first informant and his elder son namely, Santosh had been to Ukkanal Thanda and at 4.30 p.m., her husband had called her through phone stating that the petitioners and other accused have assaulted their son and therefore they were going to admit him to the hospital and further told the first informant to come to Shahapur, accordingly at 5.00 p.m., the first informant and her son went to Govt. Hospital, Shahapur, wherein they saw the injured-Anand, who had sustained grievous injuries on the head and was not in a position to talk, upon enquiry with her husband, who told that their son-Anand after coming from school had taken Ox for grazing and returned to the house at 4.00 p.m. At that time, the petitioners herein came to their house, abused him in filthy language saying that why the Ox was left to graze in his (accused No.1's) field and taken the injured to their field, wherein the petitioners have shown the place of grazing and immediately petitioner / accused No.1-Sahebreddy picked up an Axe and assaulted on the head of the minor injured and the petitioner/accused No.2-Mareppa had kicked the injured and other accused have instigated both accused Nos.1 and 2 to finish him and also abused with reference to the caste, knowing fully well the caste of the injured and the first informant. Thus, in this way the petitioners and other accused have attempted to commit the murder of the injured by assaulting on the head with Axe. Therefore, with these allegations, a case in Crime No.72/2020, came to be registered against the petitioners and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SC/ST Act', for brevity).
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.200318/2020 had impleaded-Smt. Tarabai, the first informant as respondent No.2 as she is also victim as her son had sustained injuries.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.200315/2020 had not made the first informant as a party instead submitted that it would suffice if an information is given to the victim or his dependents or the first informant about the proceedings pending before the Court as per Sub-section (3) of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act. This aspect of the matter is elaborately discussed in the light of the applicable provisions of law hereunder.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.200315/2020 had submitted that the petitioner-Mareppa had not picked up any weapon to assault the minor injured and as against him the overtact alleged is only that he has kicked the injured and abused him in filthy language. Therefore, submitted that there is no element of sharing of common intention between the petitioners and other accused and therefore prayed to release the petitioner on bail. Further submitted that this incident was occurred suddenly in a spur of moment and this petitioner had not used any weapon and further the petitioner is in custody since 23.04.2020 and he is an old age person of 58 years. Further, submitted that there is a delay in lodging the fir
