IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6435/2017 BETWEEN:
THIMMANNA @ SUKALI THIMMAPPA @ THIMMAPPA S/O. NAVILAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO. 125, JAYANTHI VILLAGE, HONNAVILE, BIDIRE HOBLI, SHIVAMOGGA 577 222.
(BY SRI.KIRAN N., ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHIVAMOGGA RURAL PS, SHIVAMOGA 577 202 (BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) ... PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.452/2016 OF SHIMOGA RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 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 of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.452/2016.
2. 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.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly submitted that on the date of alleged incident, the petitioner was not in station. Hence, there is a false implication of the petitioner in the case. He has also submitted that even looking to the complaint averments and the other prosecution material collected during investigation by the I.O., they will not make out a prima-facie case against the petitioner about his involvement in committing the alleged offence. He has further submitted that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and even there are no such circumstances to establish the chain of link to show exclusively that it is the petitioner, who committed the alleged act. Since the date of arrest, the petitioner is in custody, hence, submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that, looking to the materials, the petitioner and the deceased were the only persons, who were residing in the said house. He has submitted that when the neighbours i.e., C.Ws.8 and 9 went to the said house immediately after hearing the crying sound of the deceased, they saw the deceased sustaining so many injuries and lying on the floor of the house. It is also submitted that the petitioner gave the voluntary statement and at his instance the weapon-hammer has been recovered by the Investigating Officer in the presence of panch witnesses. Hence, he submitted that there is material to show the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence and therefore, submitted to reject the petition.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
6. The materials shows that the husband of the deceased expired about seven years ago, then she was a widow. The complaint averments further shows that even the wife of the petitioner expired and because of that reason the family members thought that if the deceased is given in marriage to the petitioner, they can lead the marital life. Accordingly, the deceased was given in marriage to the petitioner. The materials show that the petitioner and the deceased were the only persons residing in the house. Since the facts shows that the deceased and the petitioner were the only persons staying in the said house, the burden is on the petitioner to explain as to how the things took place, because as per Section 106 of Evidence Act, the facts are exclusively within the knowledge of the petitioner, the husband of the deceased.
7. Regarding the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not in station on that particular day is concerned, it is nothing but plea of alibi, which will be considered during the course of trial because the prosecution must have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on that aspect.
8. Apart from that the materials also show that the petitioner has given the voluntary statement before the Investigating Officer during investigation and at his instance the hammer has been recovered in the presence of panch witnesses. Looking to the Post Mortem report, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that death is due to the injuries sustained. Therefore, looking to these materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that there is prima-facie case against the petitioner. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.
BSR Sd/- JUDGE