Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Tavamani vs State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|23 October, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6935/2017 BETWEEN TAVAMANI S/O MURIYAPPAN COOLI, C/O JAYAKUMAR FARM HOUSE, NEAR HUSAINPURA, AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK AND PERMANENT R/O KEELYENDAPATTI VILLAGE, PADI POST, PALKOD TALUK DHARMAPURI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU 636701 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHANKUMARA D, ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHINTHAMANI RURAL POLICE CHINTHAMANI TALUK REP BY HIGH COURT GOVT. PLEADER, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE 560001 (BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.116/2017 OF CHINTAMANI RURAL POLICE STATION, CHICKBALLAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 306 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station in respect of Crime No.116/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that complainant-Narayanappa lodged complaint before the police alleging that the petitioner and his wife Smt.Selvi were living in the farm house belonging to one Jayakumar to look after the agricultural activities in the land situated between Hussainpura and Kadisenahalli for the last 4 years. The petitioner and his wife were in the habit of consuming liquor and often used to quarrel. It is further alleged that on 25.3.2017 at about 4.00 p.m. the petitioner approached the said Narayanappa and informed him that Selvi died due to electric shock in the farm house and said Narayanappa and petitioner along with Gangaraju and Venkatesh went to the spot and saw that one wooden sheet was removed and two wires from the switch board were lying near the right hand of Selvi and there was bleeding injury on the back of her head. When the petitioner was asked, the petitioner informed them that there was some misunderstanding between him and his wife and there was quarrel on the said day and he had beaten her on her head with anger and murdered her. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. After investigation, the case was registered for offence punishable under section 306 of IPC instead of 302 of IPC.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, copy of the order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application, the post mortem report and other materials placed on record.
5. On looking into the opinion of the doctor regarding the cause of death of the deceased, the death is due to hanging. Therefore, even looking into the medical opinion, there is no opinion from the doctor that death is because of electric shock or hemorrhage due to injuries caused. The petitioner has contended that when he came to the house at about 3.30 p.m. he saw the dead body of his wife Selvi hanging and later he cut the saree and while bringing the dead body down, the dead body fell on the switch board causing bleeding injury to the head. Even looking into the statement of the parents of Selvi, they are not definite about the cause of death, whether the petitioner assaulted and caused the death of the deceased.
6. Now the investigation is complete and charge sheet is filed. Offence alleged against the petitioner is neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life but exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The petitioner has contended in the petition that he is innocent and not committed the alleged offence and he has undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that petitioner can be granted with bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioners/accused is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 306 of IPC registered in Crime No.116/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE DM
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Tavamani vs State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
23 October, 2017
Judges
  • Budihal R B