IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7320/2019 BETWEEN:
V. Sharath Kumar S/o. Late Vykuntaraju Aged about 45 years R/at No.8/2 3rd Cross, Srirampura Bengaluru – 560 021. …Petitioner (By Sri. M.P. Srikanth, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Srirampura Police Station Bengaluru.
(Represented by Learned State Public Prosecutor) ... Respondent (By Sri Honnappa, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.57/2018 registered by Srirampura Police Station, Bengaluru 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 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State and perused the records.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused who is charged for the murder of his mother under section 302 of IPC in Crime No.57/2018. The charge sheet paper reveals that the petitioner and his deceased mother were residing together in the house situated at 8/2, 3rd cross Srirampura, Bengaluru. It is also the case that the accused was often demanding his mother to sell the property i.e., house property in question and perform his marriage and to pay the amount as he was in dire need of money. In this context, on 13.03.2018, in the night hours, the said lady was sleeping in the first floor and the petitioner-accused was in second floor and at about 10.00 p.m. the quarrel taken place between the mother and the son and at about 10.30 p.m., he actually smothered mouth and nose of the deceased. She being old day, died due to the blockage of the mouth and nose. Thereafter, intelligently the accused himself has telephoned to Ambulance and took the body to K.C. General hospital, Bengaluru and came to know that his mother is dead. Prior to that also he made attempts to get the death certificate of his mother at his convenience. After postmortem examination, the police found that the death of the deceased is due to asphyxia as a result of smothering. When he took the dead body of his mother to the hospital, he disclosed to the hospital that his mother was not talking at 5.15 a.m., for the reasons best known to her. Therefore, he shifted her to the hospital. But the said pretension of the accused was falsified due to the post mortem which specifically stated that the death was due to closure of mouth and nostril by smothering.
3. The neighboring people were examined by the investigation officer. During the course of the investigation, almost all the witnesses have stated that on the particular date of incident only the accused and deceased were residing in house and no else were there. After the incident, the accused told that he actually smothered and blocked the mouth and nostril of his mother after quarrelling with him as mother was raised voice. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, there are sufficient material to indicate that the accused has committed such an offence as the per statement of the witnesses and circumstances.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that immediately after coming to know about the death of his mother, he informed to one Ravichandra stating that in the night at 10.00 p.m., after dinner she went to the 2nd floor to sleep and at 4’O clock he found some galata in front of the house then he went to the 1st floor where his mother was sleeping. At about 5.15 a.m., when his mother was not talking and she did not wake up he observed some scratch marks on her face. Therefore, he shifted her to K.C. General Hospital. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that the accused has pleaded his ignorance with regard to the death of the deceased. Hence, some other persons might have committed such an offence. But the other witnesses who were examined by the police clearly stated that the accused and the deceased were only persons in the said house and in the morning the accused himself has discloses as to what happened on that particular date. Apart from that the witnesses have also stated that it is not one day quarrel between the mother and the son, they were quarreling with each other in fact the petitioner was often assaulted the deceased with an intention to sell the house for his purposes. Therefore, under the above said circumstance, the circumstantial evidence available on record are strong enough to inculpate the accused at this stage.
5. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention that the mother has executed a general power of attorney in his favour and also a will in his favour. The GPA as could be seen does not specifically indicates an absolute right in favour of her son to alienate the property. Perhaps, that may be the reason the will only come to existence after the death of the lady, the incident might have been happened. Though the Court cannot express anything in this regard that have to be cross verified at the time of full dressed trial. However, at this juncture, I am of the opinion that strong circumstances are fitted against the petitioner. At this stage, in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, whatever the observations made by this Court in this order, shall not be in any manner influence trial Court while dealing with the matter at the time of disposal of the case on merits.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE nms