IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL.R.B CRIMINAL PETITION No.6346 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
REVANTH S @ BELLI, S/O LATE SHIVASHANKAR.T.V STUDENT AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/AT NO.2904/24, 13TH MAIN ‘D’ BLOCK, 2ND PHASE RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560101.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI H.B.UDAY KUMAR, ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA (SUBRAMANYANAGAR POLICE STATION) REP. BY: LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH Court OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
… RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.54/2017 OF SUBRAMANYANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offense punishable under Section 302 of IPC registered in the respondent-Police Station Crime No.54/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused so also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the Respondent-State.
3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the entire charge sheet materials produced along with the petition by the petitioner.
4. One Smt.Lakshmamma wife of late T.Venkataramana is the complainant, wherein she has stated that she is staying along with her 7th son Nataraj and her 5th Son T.V.Shivashankar was staying along with his wife Jayalakshmi and two sons namely Revanth who is the petitioner herein and another son by name Rohith. It is further alleged in the complaint that everyday, the deceased T.V.Shivashanka was consuming alcohol and abusing his wife Jayalakshmi in filthy language and also abusing that she was having illicit connection with other persons and he had raised a doubt regarding her fidelity. The petitioner herein was telling the same before the complainant. Therefore, the complainant had advised the deceased number of times in that regard. On 13-02-2017 at about 10.00 p.m., while the deceased consumed alcohol in the house itself, he started abusing his wife Jayalakshmi that she is having illicit connection with other persons and asked her not to stay in the house, and he threw her out of the house and latched the door of the house. The same was informed by the petitioner to the complainant. But, the complainant told that everyday they will be quarreling like that and it will be set right. On the same day, at about 4.00 a.m., Jayalakshmi telephoned to the complainant informing that though her husband drove her out of the house, the petitioner let her inside the house. The deceased picked up quarrel with Revanth, the petitioner herein as to why he allowed his mother inside and he started making galata and assaulted Revanth. At that time, Revanth became angry and took knife from the kitchen and assaulted the deceased on the chest portion and other parts of the body. It was also informed that the dead body of the complainant’s son is in the hospital, then the complainant along with her 7th son Nataraj went to the hospital immediately and saw the dead body of her son which was due to stab injuries and bleeding. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant a case came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that the said incident is only because of grave and sudden provocation. However, on perusal of the prosecution materials, it is seen that not only one stab injury that was inflicted, but the medical evidence and PM report clearly goes to show that there are four injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased. Therefore, the learned High Court Government Pleader is justified in making his submission that it cannot be accepted that it was not intentional act. Further, the inflicting of four injuries with the knife itself goes to show the intention on the part of the petitioner herein to commit murder of the deceased. He further submitted that the accused had exceeded his limit in using that much force which was necessary to prevent the situation. Therefore, in view of the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly the petition is hereby rejected.
Since the petitioner is in custody from the date of arrest i.e. for the last nine months and that the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed, the concerned Sessions Court has to take up the matter on priority basis and to dispose of the same as early as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order, forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-*