IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6595/2017 BETWEEN:
Ambareesha, S/o Late Hanumantha, Aged about 32 years, R/o Devarabupura Village and Post, Lingasuru Taluk, Raichur district -584 101. ...Petitioner (By Sri. Vikas M, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By HSR Layout Police Station, Bengaluru. …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 Cr.No.903/2014 of HSR Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence P/U/S 302, 304(B) of IPC.
This Criminal Petition is coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This is the petition filed by the petitioner under section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the alleged offence punishable under sections 302, 304(B) of IPC registered in crime No. 903/2014 of respondent police.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and also learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, the present petitioner is the husband of the victim by name Manamma. The couple are having a girl child of 2 years and they were living in Devarabhupura Grama, Lingasur Taluk, Raichur District. The allegations in the complaint go to show that after the marriage the petitioner use to pick up quarrel with the deceased insisting her to bring dowry. The deceased pleaded her difficulty with the complainant several times and sought for his help The further allegation go to show that, the complainant visited the house of the victim and tried to reconcile the issues with the accused and the victim, but it did not fetch any results. In the meanwhile, accused shifted his residence to HSR Layout and started residing there in a shed and attend coolie works. On 14.12.2015 accused again picked up quarrel with the victim. Complainant visited the house along with one of his relative Ninganna to reconcile the issue. Complainant tried to take the victim back to their home which was refused by the accused. The accused on the same day had called the complainant by 4 p.m. informing the complainant that he hanged the victim to death and informed the complainant to check her dead body at home and disconnected the call. Then the complainant rushed to the said place and seen the victim lying dead. Based on the complaint the accused was arrested and crime No. 903/2014 was registered for the alleged offence.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that false allegations are made against the petitioner. It is also falsely alleged in the complaint that he has made confession before the complainant that it is he who committed the murder of his wife in the house itself. He further submitted that there is no eye witness to the alleged offence. The complaint has been registered mainly on the basis of hearsay evidence of the complainant. By imposing reasonable conditions he may be admitted to bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that prosecution material collected during the investigation prima facie case goes to show the involvement of the petitioner in committing alleged offence. It is also his submission that the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body has opined that the cause of death is because of pressing the neck. Hence, in view of the prima facie material, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials produced in the case. The place of offence is the shed wherein the petitioner and deceased were residing. Therefore, as per Section 10 of the Evidence Act, in such cases the burden is not only on the prosecution, but the burden is on the accused person to disprove the allegation as the circumstances under which the death has taken place is exclusively within the knowledge of the petitioner who is the husband of the deceased. Looking to the materials collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation and the information, it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE BVK