Karnataka High Court
Kiran S/O Iranna Jugali vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 November, 2021
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26 t h DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102129/2021
BETWEEN:
KIRAN S/O IRANN A JUGA LI
AGE 38 YEARS , A GE BUSIN ESS,
R/O.BASAVANA GA R
RABAKAVI, T Q JAM AKHANDI
DIST BAGALK OT-587314
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.GOURISHANKAR H. MOT, A DVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
TERADAL POLICE STATION
DIST BAGALK OT
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUT OR
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA
DHRWAD BEN CH, AT DHARWAD.
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH B.CHI GARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL AND RELEAS E THE
ACCUSED NO.1/PETITIONER AS ATTA CHED IN TERADAL
POLI CE STATION CRIME NO.26/2021 PENDING BEFORE
THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUD GE,
2
BAGALK`OT, SI TTING AT JAMKHANDI IN SC
NO.5030/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 3,
4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961 AND SECTION
498A , 302 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC BY IMPOSIN G
CONDITIONS.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.26/2021 of Teradal Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DP Act', for short). 3
2. The case of the prosecution is that, one Irappa, s/o Neelakanthappa Megadi has filed the complaint stating that the marriage of his daughter Rashmi was solemnized with the petitioner/accused No.1 on 20.05.2013 and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with two children. It is further stated that, soon after the birth of both the children, the petitioner/accused No.1 started demanding gold and also started giving torture and assaulting the deceased frequently. It is further stated that 5 to 6 months back, the petitioner has thrown the deceased from his house and at that time, CWs.12 and 13 had advised the petitioner and the deceased was sent back to the petitioner's house. It is further stated that accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the in-laws, have also tortured the 4 deceased and assaulted her. It is further stated that on 13.05.2021, at about 7.00 pm, the petitioner has informed the complainant through phone call and asked to come to home. At that time, the complainant went to the petitioner's house and saw that the deceased sleeping in the room and the complainant tried to wake up her but she was not in the condition to wake and found to be dead and on seeing the deceased, the complainant noticed ligature mark on her neck. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.26/2021 of Teradal Police Station for the offences under Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act against the petitioner/accused No.1 and his parents. The petitioner/accused No.1 came to be arrested on 15.05.1991 and remanded to judicial custody. 5 The police after investigation filed charge- sheet for the offences under Section 498A and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act and now the case is pending on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamkhandi in S.C. No.5030/2021. The petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.5183/2021 and the same came to be rejected by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamkhandi by order dated 22.09.2021. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
6
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is his further submission that the inquest report and the postmortem report reveal that, only, a mark was seen on the neck of the deceased which shows that she committed suicide. The Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the brother of the petitioner has been recorded after lapse of more than one month of the complaint. As charge-sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contends that, the offences alleged are heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 7 Death has occurred in the house of the petitioner. The Doctor who conducted postmortem examination has noted that there is fracture of thyroid bone and cause of death is due to asphyxia secondary to strangulation. The Doctor who conducted postmortem examination has opined that cause of death is due to ligature strangulation. The younger brother of the petitioner in his voluntary statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has stated that the petitioner and deceased were in the room and when the petitioner came out, his wife was unconscious and at that time, the petitioner was present in the room. On perusal of the entire charge- sheet material, there is prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him and the petitioner in his voluntary 8 statement has stated that he had strangulated the deceased with a saree when she was sleeping. If the petitioner is granted bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records.
7. The death of Rashmi-deceased wife of the petitioner/accused No.1 has taken place in the room of the petitioner/accused No.1 in his house. As per the statement of the brother of the petitioner recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., when the petitioner came out of the 9 room, the deceased was unconscious and subsequently she died. The voluntary statement of the petitioner/accused No.1 reveal that he pressed the neck of the deceased with saree when she was sleeping. The postmortem and the inquest reports reveal that there is black mark in front side of the neck of the deceased and there is fracture of hyoid bone. The Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination, has opined that death is due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and it is a ligature strangulation.
8. A perusal of the entire charge-sheet shows a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of he threatening the complainant and other 10 prosecution witnesses. The petitioner has not made out any ground for grant of bail.
Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv