Estate owner murdered for man’s death due to electric fencing

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: In a case of revenge killing, an estate owner in Chikkaballapura was murdered for his role in the death of a person who died due to electrocution from an electric fence. Two brothers of the electrocuted person who are accused of killing the landowner have been denied bail by the High Court of Karnataka.

Subramani and Krishnoji Rao approached the High Court for bail after it was denied to them by the Sessions Court. Both are residents of Gowribidanuru in Chikkaballapura. Justice Rajendra Badamikar heard their petition.

They are accused of the murder of Ashwath Rao, a tomato farmer. Rao had apparently installed electric fencing around his land. Vasanth Rao, the brother of Subramani and Krishnoji allegedly trespassed on the land on November 24, 2021, and he was electrocuted as a result and died. His two brothers and several others allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and quarreled with Ashwath Rao over the issue.

They are accused of assaulting Rao and causing his death. A complaint was filed with the police by Rao’s wife. The FIR was filed, and the accused was charged with murder and mischief causing damage. Subramani and Krishnoji were arrested and remanded to custody during the investigation.

A charge sheet was filed in court on February 22, 2022. Their advocate pleaded that they were in custody for over a year and since they were no longer required for investigation and therefore should be released on bail. He also pointed out that five other accused in the case have been released on bail.

The government’s advocate seriously objected to the bail plea and contended that there were eyewitnesses to the murder committed by these two accused. They had assaulted Rao with stones and sticks, and the post-mortem also supported this allegation. The HC said in its judgment that the bail provided to the other accused could not be a ground for releasing these two on bail.

“The ground of parity cannot be made applicable to the case in hand considering the specific overt act alleged by the present petitioners. Learned Sessions Judge has observed all these aspects in detail. When there is a specific overt-act alleged, merely on the ground that the petitioners are in custody for the last year, it is not grounds for admitting them on bail as they have taken away the life of a human being.”

Rejecting the bail petition, the HC said, “The offence is punishable with death or life imprisonment. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case to exercise the discretion of granting bail in favour of the present petitioners. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits and does not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same stands rejected.”