Satyappa vs The State

B.V. Pinto, J.—This petition is filed seeking bail in Crime No. 96/2013 of Wadi Police Station registered on 23.05.2013 for offences under Sections 504 and 302 of IPC.

It is the case of the prosecution that on the night of 22.05.2013 the deceased Lachamayya visited the house of one Mudukappa to attend the engagement ceremony. After attending the function at about 1:30 a.m. deceased along with his friends Santosh, Sunkappa and others were proceeding towards katta of Hanuman temple for sleeping. At that time, the petitioner came and abused them by asking as to why they are standing near the katta. It is further the case of the prosecution that at about 3:00 a.m. on 23.05.2013 when they were so sitting in the katta of the temple, petitioner again came and abused him and assaulted the deceased with a plastic pipe on his head and thus caused murder of the deceased Lachamayya.

Sri Shivasharan Reddy, "learned counsel for the petitioner submits that act of the petitioner falls u/s 304 of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC, since the petitioner has used only plastic pipe and that abrasion on the deceased is 2 cm. and 1 cm. in size and therefore he submits that the intention to commit murder is not clearly made out. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Sri S.S. Aspalli, learned H.C.G.P. on the other hand submits that this Court has rejected the bail application of the petitioner on 06.08.2013 in Crl.P. No. 15638/2013 and also in Crl.P. No. 15790/2013 by order dated 22.10.2013. This Court has already considered the bail application on merits after the charge sheet is filed. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.

On a careful consideration of the materials on record, though earlier two bail applications have been rejected, the Court has power to grant bail if a case is made out for bail. Provisions of Section 439 of Cr.P.C. are meant for safeguarding the interest of the accused with a view to protect the liberty of a citizen. However, on a careful consideration of the facts of this case, it is seen that the petitioner has assaulted with a plastic pipe, which has resulted in the haematoma on occipital region of the deceased as observed in the post mortem report. Membrane of the head has been ruptured. Hence, the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. It is also seen that no where in the complaint or other papers it is made out that it is the deceased who is the cause of the incident. No materials are demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner to bring the offences from one u/s 302 of IPC to one u/s 304 of IPC. The petitioner voluntarily went to the place where deceased was sitting along with two others and assaulted him without any provocation from the deceased and hence the act cannot be brought u/s 304 of IPC.

In that view of the matter, petition is liable to be rejected and hence, the same is rejected.