Sangappa vs The State

B.V. Pinto, J.—This petition is filed seeking bail in Crime No. 164/2013 of Shahabad Town Police Station registered on 07.09.2013 for the offences under Sections 324, 504, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

Complaint is filed by one Smt. Sunitha who is wife of deceased Ningappa. It is stated in the complaint that the family of the complainant and petitioner were owning 12 acres of land and same was given for cultivation to one Naganna S/o. Mallappa and Hiranna S/o. Shankrappa for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for two years. The accused have demanded an additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- and in this connection deceased had gone to ask the accused for share in the additional amount. It is stated in the complaint that on 07.09.2013 at about 9:00 a.m. when the husband of the complainant, i.e., deceased Ningappa was at home accused No. 1-Mallanna called him to the field and told him that the mortgagee will give additional amount for the land at about 3:00 p.m. The deceased and the accused started quarreling regarding the money in respect of the land and at that time accused No. 1-Mallanna abused the deceased and held the hands of the deceased behind his back and at that time accused No. 2-Bhimashankar assaulted the deceased with an axe on his neck, the deceased fell down and thereafter accused No. 2-Bhimashankar dropped a size stone on the head of the deceased. The petitioner has assaulted the deceased by means of a club on both his legs and stomach. Thereafter Bhimashankar again assaulted with the same axe on the stomach of the deceased indiscriminately. The deceased died instantaneously due to injuries sustained by the assault. Based on the above information case came to be registered and after investigation charge sheet has been filed.

Sri Baburao Mangane, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a case in Crime No. 163/2013 has been registered on the same day in which it is alleged that the deceased had murdered his mother at about 2:30 p.m. on the same day. Hence, he submits that the incident would have occurred in the spur of a moment without any premeditation. Hence, the offence would not fall u/s 302 of I.P.C. It is also further submitted by him that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken as true, the part played by the petitioner is to the effect that he had assaulted the deceased on his legs and stomach by means of a club. The said act would not attract an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, he submits that petitioner may be granted bail. It is also submitted by him that all the three brothers of the family are in custody. Hence leniency may be shown so far as petitioner is concerned.

Sri Sanjay Patil, learned Addl. SPP submits that the investigating officer has recorded the statement of one Mallikarjun Pujari who is the eyewitness to the incident. It is stated by the said witness that all the three brothers had joined together and have thereafter killed the deceased with an intention to cause his death. Under these circumstances the petitioner is liable u/s 34 of I.P.C. for having caused the murder of the deceased with common intention to cause such murder. Hence, he submits that the petition may be dismissed.

It is a cardinal principle of law that when act is done by more than one person with common intention, act of one amounts to act of all unless the participation of the particular accused is distinguished with reference to the intention and his specific participation in the crime. In this case all the three accused are brothers to each other and that they had done to death the deceased Ningappa conjointly. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioners'' act can be distinguished from the act of murder committed by the other accused. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for bail and therefore the petition is dismissed.