Karnataka High Court
Annappa @ Annegowda vs State By Kikkeri Police Station on 7 November, 2016
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6027/2016
BETWEEN:
ANNAPPA @ ANNEGOWDA,
S/O NAGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT SASALUKOPPALU VILLAGE,
KIKKERI HOBLI,
K.R.PET TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.R.LINGARAJU, ADV.,)
AND:
STATE BY KIKKERI
POLICE STATION,
REP.BY ITS S.S.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.B.VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CR.NO.259/2015 (S.C.NO.5013/2016) OF KIKKERI
P.S., MANDYA DISTRICT REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 302, 201 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
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 302 and 201 of IPC, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.259/2015.
2. The wife of the petitioner herein by name Ningamma has filed the complaint on 23.10.2015 alleging that on 22.10.2015, the complainant received a phone call from her sister-in-law, who informed that the accused quarreled with his mother, when she went there and objected with accused, he rushed to assault her. Thereafter, the accused hit his mother on her cheek and neck with an iron rod and she died on the spot. On the basis of said complaint, case has been 3 registered for the offence punishable under Section 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that complainant is the hear-say witness and not the eye- witness to the incident. He has also submitted that even Susheelamma is not the eye-witness to the incident, who has stated in her statement that she ran away from the said place and on the next day when she came, she saw the dead body of the deceased. Hence, he has submitted that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. Petitioner is innocent and not committed the 4 alleged offence. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed, hence, submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that, Susheelamma is the eye-witness to the incident, who as clearly stated in her statement that on the very next day when the inquest mahazar proceedings were conducted, she has stated that she seen the petitioner assaulting the deceased with the iron rod and thereafter, committed the murder of the deceased. He has also submitted that even the opinion of the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body, is consistent with the case of the prosecution. Hence, he has submitted that petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
5
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, charge sheet material, so also the statement of Susheelamma, which is marked at Annexure-E to the petition. Looking to the statement of Susheelamma, it is clear that she is the eye-witness to the incident, she has personally witnessed the incident of petitioner assaulting his mother with iron bar and thereby committing her murder at the spot.
7. Perusing the PM report, the opinion of the Doctor regarding the cause of death is totally consistent with the statement of the eye-witness Smt.Susheelamma. The incident took place in the house of the petitioner. Hence, prosecution placed prima-facie material about the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, which is punishable with 6 death or imprisonment for life. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and to enlarge him on bail.
Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR