Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 37142
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI WRIT PETITION NO. 3301 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 5871 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
In WP No.3301/2024 Between:
Sri. Chandappa Gowda S/o. Poovani Gowda, Aged about 54 years, R/at Pangala House, Dharmasthala Village, Digitally signed Belthangady Taluk, by VEERENDRA D.K. District 574216.
KUMAR K M …Petitioner Location: HI GH COURT OF (By Sri. Balakrishna M.R., Advocate)
KARNATAKA And:
1. The Government of Karnataka Represented by its Home Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru 560001.
2. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru-560001.
3. The Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police CID, Carlton House, Palace Road, Bengaluru-560001.
4. The Additional General of Police and Inspector General of Police (Crime and Technical Services), Police Head Quarters, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru – 560001.
5. The Superintendent of Police Dakshina Kannada District, Mangaluru, D.K. District-575004.
6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Carlton House, Palace Road, Bengaluru – 560001.
7. The Station House officer Belthangady Police Station, Belthangady, D.K. District – 574214.
8. The Central Bureau of Investigation
6th Floor, Lodhi Road, Plot No 5-B, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Marg, CEO Complex, New Delhi, Delhi-110003.
(Represented by Special Public Prosecutor)
9. The Central Bureau of Investigation SCB, Chennai, State of Tamil Nadu – 600020.
(Represented by Special Public Prosecutor) 10. Mr. Santhosh Rao, S/o. Sudhakar Rao, Aged about 43 years, R/at Sri. Navadurga Prasad, Near Housing Board Colony, Kukkundooru Village, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District – 574104.
…Respondents (By Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, SPP II, for R1 to R7; Sri. Prasanna Kumar P., Advocate, for R8 and R9;
Sri. Mohith Kumar K, Advocate, for R10)
This WP is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the R8 to conduct a re- investigation / denovo investigation in Cr.No.250/2012 originally registered by the R7-Belthangady Police as per the complaint dated 9.10.2012 i.e Annexure -A and FIR in Crime No.250/2012 dated 9.10.2012 i.e Annexure -B and re- registered as FIR No.RC.2(S)/2014/CBI/SCB/Chennai dated
7.03.2014 as per Annexure-E by R9 and etc., In WP No.5871/2024 Between:
Mr. Santhosh Rao, S/o. Sudhakar Rao, Aged about 43 years, R/at Sri. Navadurga Prasad, Near Housing Board Colony, Kukundooru Village, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District - 574104.
…Petitioner (By Sri. Mohith Kumar K., Advocate)
And:
1. The Government of Karnataka Represented by its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. The Home Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru - 560 001.
3. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
4. The Additional Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police, CID, Carlton House, Palace Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
5. The Additional General of Police and Inspector General of Police (Crime and Technical Services)
Police Head Quarter, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Dakshina Kannada District Mangaluru, D.K.District -575 004.
7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Carlton House, Palace Road, Bengaluru - 560001.
8. The Station House Officer, Belthangady Police Station, Belthangady, D.K.District - 574214.
9. The Central Bureau of Investigation
6th Floor, Lodhi Road, Plot No.5-B Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Marg, CEO Complex, New Delhi, Delhi - 110 003 (Represented by Special Public Prosecutor)
10. The Central Bureau of Investigation, SCB, Chennai, State of Tamil Nadu - 600 020.
(Represented by Special Public Prosecutor)
11. Sri. Chandappa Gowda S/o Poovani Gowda, Aged about 54 years, R/at Pangala House, Dharmasthala Village, Belthangady Taluk, D.K.District - 574216.
12. Sri Jagadish, S/o. Nonaiah Gowda, Aged about 41 years, R/at Kajebettu House, Padangadi Village, Belthangady Post and Taluk D.K. District – 574216.
…Respondents (By Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, SPP-II, for R1 to R8; Sri Prasanna Kumar P., Advocate, for R9 and R10; Sri. Balakrishna M.R., Advocate, for R11 and R12)
This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the R-9 to conduct re- investigation / denovo investigation in Cr.No. 250/2012 originally registered by the R-8 Belthangady Police as per the complaint dated 09.10.2012 i.e. Annexure-A and FIR in Crime No.250/2012 dated 09.10.2012 i.e. Annexure-B and re- registered as Crime No. RC.2(S)/2014/CBI/SCB/Chennai as per Annexure-E dated 07.03.2014 by R10 and etc.,
| Date on which the petitions were reserved for judgment | 02.07.2024 |
| Date on which the order was pronounced | 30.08.2024 |
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR and HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)
These two writ petitions seek reinvestigation or denovo investigation in relation to Crime No. 250/2012 registered at Belthangady police station for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 302 of IPC. The factual ground is as follows :
2. On 09.10.2012, a girl by name Soujanya did not return home from college. Her father made a complaint to Belthangady police about missing of his daughter. The police registered it in Crime No. 250/2012. On the next day, i.e., 10.10.2012, the dead body of Soujanya (‘the girl’ for short) was found in bushes near a place called Mannasanka. The postmortem revealed the girl being strangled to death after being raped. Upon a report made by one Jagadish, uncle of the girl, the police invoked the penal sections 376 and 302 of IPC in the FIR already registered in Crime No. 250/2012. In the initial stage the investigation was undertaken by Belthangady police, but yielding to public outcry and considering the sensitivity of the matter, the Government entrusted the investigation to CID, which charge sheeted one Santhosh Rao, the writ petitioner in W.P.5871/2024 for the offences under sections 376 and 302 of IPC. The parents of the girl and the public suspected that the crime had been committed by three or four boys belonging to an influential family of that region, not by Santhosh Rao who according to them was innocent. They suspected that the law enforcing agency was protecting the actual perpetrators of crime. Because of mounting pressure by public, the Government of Karnataka passed an order on 06.11.2013 handing over further investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). But the CBI also filed charge sheet against Santhosh Rao. Pursuant to the charge sheet of the CBI, Santhosh Rao faced trial in the court at Bengaluru in Spl. C.C. 203/2016 and stood acquitted by judgment dated 16.06.2023. While acquitting Santhosh Rao, the trial court recorded a finding that Santhosh Rao’s involvement in commission of crime was not forthcoming. In other words the observation of the trial court was that Santhosh Rao was innocent of allegations leveled in the charge sheet. The trial court also directed the Acquittal Committee to initiate action against erring police officers. In this background the girl’s father and Santhosh Rao have sought a direction for reinvestigation/denovo investigation. W.P.3301/2024 is filed by the father of the girl and W.P.5871/2024 is filed by Santhosh Rao. In W.P.3301/2024, a direction is also sought to respondent No.4, i.e., Head of Acquittal Committee to pass necessary orders consequent to direction given by the trial court. In W.P.5871/2024, besides direction for reinvestigation, Santhosh Rao has sought two more directions, one to the Head of Acquittal Committee to take action pursuant to order passed by the trial court and the other to the State Government to award compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs for prosecuting him maliciously.
3. We have heard the arguments of Sri M.R.Balakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.3301/2024, Sri Mohith Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.5871/2024 and Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned standing counsel for the CBI and Sri Vijaykumar Majage, learned SPP-II, for the State.
4. Sri M.R.Balakrishna argued that the investigation was misdirected since inception in order to help powerful family in the region. Santhosh Rao was not the culprit, it was known to everybody in that place. The father and the uncle of the girl who were respectively examined as PW1 and PW2 in the criminal trial gave evidence very clearly that the girl was raped and killed by three or four persons, they did not suspect the involvement of Santhosh Rao. In fact the finding of the trial court is also that Santhosh Rao is innocent. PW1 filed an application under section 319 of Cr.P.C for proceeding against the suspects namely Mallik Jain, Dheeraj Jain and Uday Jain. The trial court passed an order directing
