IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.7036/2018 BETWEEN:
Praveen Kumara @ Praveen, S/o Madeva, Aged about 21 years, Narasihmaswamy Badavane, Hunsur Town, Mysore District-560 020. …Petitioner (By Sri C.N. Raju, Advocate) AND:
State by Hunsur Town Police Mysuru, Rept by SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560 001. .…Respondent (By Sri M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.485/2017 of Hunusur Town Police Station, Mysuru District for the offences P/U/S 302 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner- accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C to release him on bail in Crime No.485/2017 of Hunusur Town Police Station, Mysuru District (S.C.No.156/2018) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is the husband of the deceased and they have three children. The petitioner-accused was also working along with the complainant and he used to visit the house of the complainant in his absence and used to misbehave with his wife, his wife informed to the complainant. In this regard, the complainant warned the petitioner-accused many a times. In spite of that, the petitioner-accused continued the said misbehavior. The complainant informed to the Management about the misbehavior of the petitioner-accused with his wife and as such, he was removed from the job. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused continued to visit his house in his absence and he was harassing the complainant’s wife. On 08.12.2017, when the complainant came to his house, his wife was not there in the house, when he asked her, she told him that she had been to the parent’s house of the petitioner-accused to complain against his misbehavior. On 09.12.2017, she got up and went out of the house to bring the milk and returned home at 6.50 AM, at that time, when the complainant was brushing, at about 7.00 AM, he saw the petitioner-accused running out from the first floor of the house, immediately, he called his second daughter to go and see what has happened in the upstairs, then she went to upstairs of the house and returned, told the complainant that her mother was lying on the floor. Immediately, they went to the upstairs and saw the deceased was lying on the floor and saw the nail marks on neck and Mangalya chain was tied to the neck of the deceased and already she has breathed her last. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence and there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. He further submitted that nobody has seen the petitioner-accused entering the house of the complainant. The evidence of the complainant and his daughter stating that petitioner-accused was running out of the house does not connect to the petitioner-accused being involved in the alleged crime. He further submitted that the complainant stated in his statement that he saw the accused while he was going out from the upstairs at about 7.00 AM and stated that his wife-deceased went out of the house and returned home at about 6.50 AM, but there is no evidence to show that how the petitioner- accused entered the house without the knowledge of the complainant, which is clearly goes to show that the complaint suppress the real facts of the case. He further submitted that the alleged incident has taken place in the house of the complainant and during the course of the investigation, the mobile of the petitioner-accused was seized, call details have not been collected, if they collect the call details, it could have indicated the location of the petitioner-accused at the time of the alleged incident. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer has not collected any material to connect the petitioner-accused in the alleged crime. The petitioner-accused is ready to abide by any of the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court and also ready to offer sureties, if he is released on bail. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that petitioner- accused used to behave indecently with the deceased and earlier also the deceased had told her husband and the same was also informed to the Management and because of the said act, he was removed from the service. For that reason, he was having grudge against her. He further submitted that the complainant and his daughter have seen the accused running out of the house prior to the alleged incident. He further submitted that the statement of the daughter of the complainant as well as the statement of the complainant clearly goes to show that petitioner-accused is involved in the alleged crime. The medical evidence corroborated with the evidence of the witness discloses that the petitioner-accused is involved in a serious offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
6. On close reading of the complaint and other materials that it clearly indicates the fact that the petitioner-accused used to visit the house of the complainant and also used to misbehave with the wife of the complainant and as such, when he has been removed from the job and he was having grudge against the deceased. The statement of the daughter of the complainant discloses that prior to the alleged incident, the petitioner-accused was quarrelling with the deceased and immediately few seconds later, he ran out of the house and when she went and saw, the deceased was lying on the floor, having injuries on her neck and other parts of the body and she has been strangulated. Even the post mortem report also corroborates the statement of the said witness to show the nail marks were found on the neck. Doctor also opined that the death is due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. All these materials prima-facie show that the petitioner-accused is involved in the alleged crime. Though the entire case rest on circumstantial evidence, there are strong circumstance to point out the guilt of the petitioner-accused in the crime.
7. Under the facts and circumstance, I feel that it is not a case to release the petitioner-accused on bail. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
Sd/- JUDGE HA/-