IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9342/2018 BETWEEN:
Suresha, S/o. Late Narasimaiaha, Nagavara Post, Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District-562 108. ...Petitioner (By Sri.Hariprasad.M.B, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by M.K.Doddi Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560 001. ...Respondent (By Smt. Namitha Mahesh.B.G, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.61/2018 registered by M.K.Doddi Police Station, Ramanagara and in S.C.No.93/2018 pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara for the offence p/u/s 302 and 201 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail in Crime No.61/2018 (S.C. No.93/2018) of M.K. Doddi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Genesis of the complaint is that on 25.07.2018 at 4.00 p.m., when deceased Nagamma was sleeping in her house on diwana cot, with an intention to take away her life as she was not allotted his share of 15 guntas of land in the property, has smothered her by the use of bedsheet, buried her dead body in the backyard. On the basis of the complaint, a case came to be registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that already the charge sheet has been filed and since seven months, the accused petitioner is in custody. There are no eye-witness to the alleged incident. The entire case rest on circumstantial evidence. Even if it is looked into the entire chargesheet material, it is seen that only on mere suspicion, the accused has been considered as accused and there is no material to show that he has involved in the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Further it is submitted that the statement of Santhosh and Ramesh does not disclose the involvement of the accused petitioner in the alleged crime. Further it is submitted that earlier the complaint was registered as against the accused petitioner and his wife. Subsequently while filling the chargesheet, accused No.2 – Wife has been dropped out. Because of the civil disputes and ill-will, he has been falsely implicated in the said case. It is further submitted that accused petitioner is not required to be continued in custody. If accused petitioner is detained in jail, it will be a conviction before the trial and submits that he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that though the entire case rest on circumstantial evidence, there are strong circumstances, which pointed out the guilt of the accused. There is a strong motive that the deceased has not given 15 guntas of the land and as such, there was ill-will between the accused petitioner and deceased. It is further submitted that at the instance of the accused petitioner, the dead body was exhumed from back yard of the house where accused is residing. It is further submitted that the deceased was also living along with the accused persons and even the accused has also given extra judicial confession before CWs.4 and 5. Further it is submitted that the Doctor opines that the death is due to Smothering. All these circumstances clearly pointed out the guilt of the accused and the alleged offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the entire material it is seen that there are no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and entire case rest on circumstantial evidences. It is well settled principle of law that the men may lie but circumstantial evidence will not. The prosecution has relied upon the four circumstances. Firstly, the strong motive of civil dispute between the accused and the deceased for not having given 15 gunats of land. The dead body was exhumed at the instance of the accused and the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before CWs.4 and 5. Lastly, it is a homicidal death. It was the opinion of the Doctor that the death is due to smothering by the accused. The accused and the deceased are staying together. All these circumstances, clearly go to show that there is prima-facie material as against the accused petitioner, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
Under the fact and circumstances, I feel that it is not a fit case to release the petitioner accused on bail. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
VBS Sd/- JUDGE