Jakkappa Khemanna Sabhaji vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2014

[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

Jakkappa Khemanna Sabhaji vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2014

Bench: K.N. Phaneendra

                             1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH
      DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014

                        BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

         CRIMINAL PETITION No. 100165/2014

BETWEEN:

JAKKAPPA KHEMANNA SABHAJI
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: MILITARY SERVICE
R/O. MANNIKERI,
TQ & DIST: BELGAUM
                                      ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH BADIGER, ADV.)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(KAKATI PS)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
                                        ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.331/2013 REGISTERED BY KAKATI POLICE STATION, FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC.
                               2




    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court after filing of the charge sheet. The Sessions Court has dismissed the petition. Charge sheet papers disclose that the petitioner was suspecting the conduct of his wife. In this background, on 25.09.2013, the petitioner, his wife and his son by name Aviskar slept together in their house at Bukyala village of Chandaghad Taluk, Maharashtra State. In the early morning, the dead body of the wife of the petitioner found in the house. The statement of the son of the petitioner i.e. Aviskar shows that on the previous night at 10.p.m. there was a quarrel between the petitioner and his wife. In that context, he 3 throttled the neck of his wife and Aviskar became afraid of the said incident, without opening his mouth he slept. In the early morning the petitioner went to his another house where his father and mother slept in the said house on the previous night. He discloses that he committed the murder of his wife by throttling her neck. The extra judicial confession before the father and mother of the petitioner and statement of Aviskar against the petitioner, at this stage are sufficient to infer a prima-facie case against the petitioner. Further added to the above said circumstances, the postmortem report also discloses that the death was due to throttling and injuries found on the neck are antemortem in nature. The strong circumstance against the petitioner has to be explained by him at the time of full dressed trial. At this stage, I am of the opinion, there are very strong materials against the petitioner, hence he is not entitled 4 to be released on bail. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE Rms

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court