Sharath R vs State Of Kerala

K.Haripal, J

Petitioner is the first accused in crime No.873 of 2021 of Vattiyoorkavu police station, Thiruvananthapuram district, which was registered on

17.06.2021 alleging offence under Sections 302, 212 read with 34 of IPC. The incident that led to the death of one Satheesh Kumar had happened at

about 4:00 PM on 17.06.2021. On the same day one Sajitha, who claimed to be the sister in law of the deceased, lodged the First Information

Statement to the Sub Inspector of police, Vattiyoorkavu police station. After recording the statement that crime was registered alleging offence under

Section 302 read with 34 IPC. It is stated that when accused Nos.1 and 2 had made defamatory statements about the informant and her sister,

deceased Satheesh Kumar had questioned them and out of that animosity, accused Nos.1 and 2 attacked and caused him grievous injuries. The first

accused had allegedly hit the said Satheesh Kumar with a wooden plank having nails whereas the second accused had attacked him with a PVC pipe.

The nail laden wooden plank hit on the calf muscle of deceased Satheesh Kumar, who was suffering from varicose vein disease and consequent to

the incised wound suffered by him on the calf muscle below knee, profuse bleeding occurred and he was immediately taken to the Peroorkada

hospital, from where he was referred to the Medical College hospital. But before reaching the Medical College hospital he died. Accordingly the crime

was registered. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 18.06.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody.

I heard the learned counsel on both sides.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Satheesh Kumar was a history sheeter, was a troublemaker in the locality and the

people in the area were fed up with him; no such injury was caused by the accused so as to attract Section 299 of the IPC. The deceased had died of

hemorrhage and the alleged attacks were below his knee; there was no one else in the area. The petitioner had no mens rea to kill him. He has no

criminal antecedents. The weapons have already been recovered and therefore further detention of the petitioner is not warranted.

The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submits that the accused was arrested on 18.06.2021, that the investigation has progressed considerably. She

also made available the case diary. I have perused the case diary.

The incident that had led to the death of the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant was happened at 4 pm on 17.06.2021 at Kalagramam where

the informant, her sister, deceased Satheesh Kumar etc. were residing. It is evident that her sister Savitha and Satheesh Kumar were living in a shed

adjacent to their house. The husband of Savitha had abandoned her and after that for the last seven years Satheesh Kumar and Savitha were living

together as husband and wife. They do not have children in that relationship. Satheesh Kumar was engaged in collecting waste from Chenkal choola.

He was in the habit of taking drinks everyday and had involved in numerous criminal cases. Whatever it may be, accused Nos.1 and 2 had uttered

defamatory statements about the informant and her husband, which was questioned by Satheesh Kumar. On that premise, an altercation ensued and

at first the 2nd accused attacked Satheesh Kumar with a PVC pipe; thereafter the petitioner/the first accused beat him with a nail laden wooden

plank, which hit on his leg. Satheesh Kumar was suffering from varicose vein; one of the strikes hit on his calf muscle, which resulted to profused

bleeding. Immediately, both the accused left the place. The 1st accused was taken from the place by a motorcycle by the 3rd accused. At first,

Satheesh Kumar refused to go to hospital. Even though some first aid was given, his leg was tied by Savitha, his condition worsened, he was removed

to the General Hospital in an autorikshaw. By the time his pulse rate had fallen and they referred him to the Medical College hospital. But before

reaching Medical College hospital, he died.

It has come out that the deceased had abrasion and lacerated wound below his left knee. The lacerated wound was deep and his varicose vein had

broken. Consequently, he suffered cardiac hemorrhage and died due to bleeding following blunt injury sustained in his left leg. Now the petitioner and

others face allegations under Sections 302 and 212 read with 34 of the IPC.

It is not necessary for this Court to probe into the question whether the petitioner and others had nursed an intention or knowledge to cause death of

Satheesh Kumar. It is true that both accused 1 and 2 had attacked Satheesh Kumar using PVC pipe and a nail laden wooden plank, that is a reaper,

below his knee and that resulted in his breakage of varicose vein. He suffered profuse bleeding and thus died of hemorrhage. Thus the acts of the

accused were instrumental in causing the death of deceased.

After going through the case diary, it is sure that on the following day itself the accused were arrested by the police, the weapons of offence used

by them have been traced; the 3rd accused also has been arrested; the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents. He is in custody for the last 53

days that the investigation has progressed. Therefore, it does not seem that continued detention of the petitioner is warranted and he shall be released

on bail on the following conditions:-

i) The petitioner shall execute bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional

court;

ii) He shall not try to contact or influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence;

iii) He shall not leave the country without permission of the jurisdictional court;

iv) He shall not involve in any crime during the period on bail;

v) He shall appear before the investigating officer/trial court as and when required;

vi) He shall strictly abide the various guidelines issued by the State and Central Governments with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19

pandemic;

vii) If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional court will be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

The bail application is allowed.