In the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK B.HINCHIGERI W.A. NO.100787/2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: NINGAPPA S/O HUCHCHAPPA HEBBALLI, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC.: BANK EMPLOYEE, R/O SULLA, TQ.: BADAMI, DIST.: BAGALKOT, BADAMI PIN-587 201. - APPELLANT (BY SRI S.P. KANDGAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, BADAMI P.S., BADAMI-587 201, BAGALKOT DISTRICT. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAGALKOT-587 101. 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NRUPATANGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002. 4. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2 - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.S. PATIL, GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.06.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.94296/2013 & ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR .J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed questioning the order dated 16.06.2014 passed in W.P. No. 84286/14 by which the learned Single Judge has refused to order for reinvestigation of Crime No. 157/2010 registered in Badami Police Station. 2. Records reveal that Yallappa son of Huchappa Hebballi who was working as a Police Constable in KSRP, Bijapur, was found dead on the railway tracks in the morning of 15.07.2010. Deceased Yallappa had married Smt. Netravati @ Chennamma of Badami. House of the 3 brother of Yallappa was also situated at Badami during the relevant period. After visiting his brother’s house deceased Yallappa had been to the house of his wife at about 6.00 p.m. on 14.07.2010. He allegedly was fully drunk and quarreled with the inmates of the house of his father in law, i.e., father of Smt. Netravati. He left his in laws house at about 09.00 p.m. on 04.07.2010 and thereafter he was not seen by anybody. As aforementioned his dead body was found on the next day, i.e., 15.07.2010 on railway tracks of Badami-Lakamapur railway. 3. One Basappa reported the matter to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gadag Railway Police Station about lying of the dead body, who in turn sent the message to Gadag Railway Police Station. In turn Gadag Railway Police registered a case in UDR No. 31/2010 and conducted inquest proceedings and recorded statement of two witnesses. Subsequently, the appellant and his brothers who were unable to trace the whereabouts of 4 deceased Yallappa lodged missing complaint before Badami Police Station 26.07.2010, i.e., after lapse of 12 days. Thereafter the Railway Police registered a case in Railway Crime No. 29/2010 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC after the complaint lodged by the appellant. On 14.08.2010 the Badami Police received the file, and the crime was again registered in Crime No. 157/2010. The said Police after thorough investigation did not find any case against any of the accused and subsequently they submitted ‘B’ final report before the jurisdictional Court, which came to be accepted by the jurisdictional Court by passing the detailed order after hearing the complainant as per law. 4. Sri Kandagal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the investigating officers have not examined the accused persons who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law; they have falsely recorded further statements of certain 5 witnesses, namely Shantha wife of Shivakumarswamy Yaragambalimath, Veeranna son of Veerabhadrappa Hirthi and Thippanna Fakirappa Atagali in order to discard their earlier statements made before the Railway Police. According to him, the Investigation Officer of Badami Police had improperly conducted the investigation. 5. Based on the very statements, the writ petition came to be filed before this Court in W.P. No. 84286/2013 invoking Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. This Court by the order dated 16.06.2014 dismissed the writ petition on coming to the conclusion that it is not a fit case to order for reinvestigation into the matter. 6. Sri Kandagal, as aforementioned submits very arguments before us also which are already adequately answered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 6 7. Firstly, the writ appeal may not be maintainable in as much as the order passed by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be the subject matter of the writ appeal. This Court has issued a circular dated 10.02.2012 bearing NO. HCE 154/2012 to the effect that in case if a writ petition seeking quashing of FIR, charge sheet and other proceedings initiated under the Cr.P.C. is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the same shall be posted before the Bench having roster of criminal cases under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the High Court of Karnataka. This circular discloses that such writ petitions shall be treated as petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. If it is so, there cannot be an intra Court appeal as against the order passed by the learned Single Judge under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8. Be that as it may, even on merits we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7 9. In order to satisfy our conscious, we have gone through the investigation records in detail. It is no doubt true that the statements of one Smt. Shanta, Veeranna and Thippanna were recorded earlier wherein they had stated that they saw the accused assaulting the deceased on the previous day in his in-laws house, i.e., on 14.07.2010. They have further stated that after about 09.00 p.m. on 14.07.2010 the deceased left the house of his in-laws and thereafter his whereabouts are not known. Further statements of these witnesses recorded subsequently during investigation would reveal that they have restricted their earlier statements. In the further statements these witnesses have specified that whatever they have stated in the earlier statements, are all false and the same was due to the anger against the accused. Added to it, even those witnesses namely Shanta, Veeranna and Tippanna have stated that they have not seen the victim after 09.00 p.m. on 14.07.2010. The incident has taken place somewhere during night intervening between 14.07.2010 and 8 15.07.2010. The body was found lying on the railway track. Even assuming that the earlier statements of Shanta, Veeranna and Tippanna are fare, the same cannot prove the complicity of the accused in as much as there is nothing on record to show that the accused have also left their house after 09.00 p.m. along with the deceased or behind the deceased. 10. The Doctor who conducted postmortem has opined that the death is due to shock as a result of injuries sustained by a moving train. Thus, it appears to be the case of suicide and not a case of homicide. 11. Even on reappreciation of the material on record we do not find any ground to disagree with the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge. Hence no interference is called for. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 9 In view of dismissal of the writ appeal, I.A. No. 1/2014 filed for dispensation does not survive and is accordingly dismissed. SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE bvv.