Karnataka High Court
Rautappa S/O Mallikarjun Hullur vs The State Through on 23 March, 2016
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200302/2016
Between:
Ravutappa
S/o Mallikarjun Hullur
Age: 30 Years
R/o Nagathan
Tq. and Dist. Vijayapura
... Petitioner
(By Sri Shivakumar Tengli, Advocate)
And:
The State Through Vijayapura
Rural Police Rep. by S.P.P.
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi
... Respondent
(By Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar M., HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to allow the petition and release the
petitioner on bail in Cr.No.108/2015, S.C. No.79/2015
pending on the file of II Addl. Sessions Judge Court
Vijayapura Bijapur Rural P.S. which is registered for the
offences P/U/Sec. 304B, 34, 498A, 201, 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 the learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the records.
2. Vijayapur Rural police have laid a charge- sheet against petitioner and others in C.C.No.2193/2015, which later culminated in Sessions Case No. 79/2015 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur for the offences under sections 498(A), 304(B), 302, 201 R/w s. 34 of Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The brief factual matrix of the case are that the deceased by name Dakshayini D/o Gurupadappa was given in marriage to the petitioner who is resident of Nagathan village about three years prior to the incident. It is alleged that at the time of marriage itself 3 the petitioners have demanded Rs.1.00 lakh cash, gold articles etc. It is further alleged that even after the marriage, the petitioner and his family members continued to demand for further dowry and other articles and also they started illtreating and harassing the deceased Dakashayini in this regard. In this background there was a Panchayat convened in order to advise the petitioner. In spite of that it is alleged that, they did not desist themselves from demanding dowry and harassing and ill-treating the deceased. Particularly alleging that on 31.03.2015 all the accused persons have conjointly abused the deceased and also poured kerosene on her and lit fire and caused death of deceased Dakshayini. The death was occurred within seven years from the date of marriage and there was allegation soon before the death, there was demand of dowry. Therefore, the above said provisions invoked by the police. There is no dispute that the death was occurred within seven years from the date of marriage 4 in the matrimonial house of the Dakshayini and on that day the petitioner and others were present in the house and the death of the deceased was due to burn injuries. The post mortem report shows that she died due to burn injuries.
4. In this background, the learned High Court Government Pleader drawn my attention to the witnesses to the incident who have seen the accused persons on that particular day going away from their house immediately after the incident and later they found the dead body of the deceased which was fully burnt. CW.11-Mallappa, CW.12-Srishail, CW.13- Srishail, CW.14-Basavaraj, CW.15-Sidraya and CW.17- Shivanand, all these witnesses have categorically stated that on that day in the night hours after hearing scream voice of the deceased they went near the house of the petitioner and they saw the accused-petitioners were running away from their house. On getting suspension 5 these witnesses went into the house of the petitioner and saw the burnt dead body of the deceased. The above said circumstances, in my opinion at this stage establishes strong prima facie case against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that none of the witnesses have stated in which direction the accused persons went away on that particular day though there were several roads situated in front of the house of the petitioner. He drawn my attention to the sketch drawn by the police during investigation, it shows that there was road in front of the house of the accused, further the existence of the houses of the witnesses noted above are shown in the sketch. The said minor discrepancy as to in what direction the accused went away to be thrashed out at the trial, which is in my opinion cannot be made use for 6 the purpose of granting bail in view of strong statement of the witnesses as detailed supra.
6. Under the above said circumstances, the petitioner is being the husband he has to explain what exactly happened on that particular day. Therefore, in my opinion the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MK/sdu