IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.697 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Smt. Sukanyamma, W/o. Munikrishnappa, Aged about 40 years, R/o Jyothenahalli Village, Bangarpete Taluk, Kolar District – 563 101. …Petitioner (By Sri. Veeranna G. Tigadi, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, Represented by Sub–Inspector of Police, Bangarpete Police Station, Bangarpete, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. SPP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.298/2018 (S.C.No.221/2018) of Bangarpet P.S., K.G.F., for the offence P/U/S 302, 324 read with 34 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in S.C.No.221/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324 read with 34 of IPC.
2. Petitioner is the wife of the deceased. About 20 days earlier to the incident, the petitioner started residing with the deceased. On 13.09.2018 at about 09.30 P.M. the petitioner along with her minor son/accused No.2 are alleged to have assaulted on the back and legs of deceased with a chair and caused injuries and when he collapsed on the ground both accused persons tied a rope around his neck and pulled forcibly, as a result, the deceased died due to strangulation. The medical evidence is to the effect that the death is caused due to asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation. The rope used for commission of the alleged offence is recovered at the instance of accused No.1 on 15.09.2018.
3. The prosecution has relied on the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the petitioner to one Ramappa. The name of the aforesaid Ramappa does not find place in the complaint. According to the complainant, she came to know about the involvement of the petitioner in the murder of the deceased through somebody. Further, the prosecution has relied on the statement of CW2 and CW3, the neighbouring witnesses, who have stated about the deceased and the accused last seen together. They have also spoken about the quarrel between the deceased and the petitioner at the time of the alleged incident. Even their names do not figure out in the complaint.
4. Even with regard to the alleged recovery attributed to the petitioner is concerned, according to the prosecution, the said rope was found in the kitchen and same was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. On 14.09.2018 a spot panchanama was conducted and there is no explanation as to why the prosecution did not find the said rope, if the same was available in the house where the incident had taken place. All these circumstances raise serious questions about the credibility of the material collected by the prosecution. The material brought on record indicate that the petitioner had deserted the deceased for about two years earlier to the incident. She herself has sought for a divorce and had filed a petition before the competent Court.
5. Having regard to the above facts, the allegations made against the petitioner that just 20 days earlier to the incident she started residing with the deceased and committed his murder on account of her alleged illicit relationship with one Nanjappa is required to be proved during trial. As the investigation is completed, custody of the petitioner is not required to be extended solely by way of punishment. Having regard to the nature of the evidence collected by the prosecution, there cannot be apprehension that she may tamper with the evidence or prevail upon any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. Hence, no prejudice would be caused if the petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to conditions.
Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed.
a) Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on obtaining a bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
b) Petitioner shall appear regularly before the court as and when required.
c) Petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
Sd/- JUDGE SV