Karnataka High Court
Namadev S/O Huligeppa Gunjannawar vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HONORABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200129/2014
BETWEEN:
Namadev S/o Huligeppa Gunjannawar
Age: 35 years, Occupation: Agriculture,
R/o Kadlewad
Taluka: Sindagi
District: Bijapur
...PETITIONER
(By Shri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
R/by Additional State Public Prosecutor
Gulbarga Bench.
(Through Devar Hippargi Police Station)
...RESPONDENT
(By Shri S.S. Aspalli, Government Pleader)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying that grant the
regular bail to the petitioner in C.C.No.182/2013 (Devar
Hipparagi Police Station Crime No.96/2013) pending on the file
2
of Judicial Magistrate First Class Sindagi, which is registered
for the offences P/U/S. 498-A, 302, R/W 34 of Indian Penal
Code.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following :-
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The complainant is the mother-in-law of the petitioner. Her daughter was given in marriage to the petitioner a year prior to the incident. It is the complainant's case that the present petitioner, along with his family members, was subjecting Vijayalakshmi, the daughter of the complainant, to cruelty and that the petitioner was suspecting her fidelity and was continuously torturing her and that on 13.9.2013, it is alleged that the petitioner assaulted Vijayalakshmi and poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire. She had suffered serious injuries and was hospitalised and it is thereafter the complainant had set the law in motion and a case has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 3 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC' for brevity) against the petitioner and his parents. Vijayalakshmi had subsequently succumbed to the injuries and an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was also inserted in the allegations against the petitioner. The bail application on behalf of the parents of the petitioners was allowed on the finding that there were no overt acts alleged against them. However, insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the court below has rejected the bail application having regard to the dying declaration of Vijayalakshmi, who has categorically stated that she was subjected to torture by the petitioner and that he had set her on fire.
2. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would seek to contend that the dying declaration was in the Marathi language, which the deceased did not know and therefore it is highly suspicious as being the dying declaration of the deceased. Secondly, it is contended that the deceased had made 4 a further statement that the petitioner had indeed tried to save her by pouring water on her and had taken care of her during her treatment in the hospital and this statement would absolve the petitioner of any guilt and in the face of the dying declaration recorded in the first instance being in the Marathi language, would necessarily have to be viewed with caution in proceeding to hold that the petitioner was indeed guilty of having committed the murder of his wife and therefore the petitioner is to be enlarged on bail as there is no clinching evidence except the suspicious dying declaration, which is sought to be set up against him.
3. While it is a matter of evidence whether the deceased did know the Marathi language, it cannot be presumed on the statement by the petitioner that she was not familiar with the Marathi language. Further, the statement made to the effect that the petitioner had poured water on her to save her does not take away the earlier statement that he had set her on fire and the presence of the parents of the petitioner at the time of the 5 incident and their inaction did not absolve them of complicity in the commission of the crime and though they have been enlarged on bail, that by itself would not enable the petitioner to claim bail as well.
Therefore, the court below has rejected the bail application having regard to the death of the petitioner's wife being unnatural one and the same having occurred within one year from the date of marriage. Hence, there is no case made out for consideration. The bail petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv