Karnataka High Court
Omakka W/O. Gundu Bandagi vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 September, 2012
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM
CRL.P. NO.11026/2012
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. OMAKKA W/O. GUNDU BANDAGI,
AGE : 55 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BASTWAD VILLAGE, BELGAUM.
2. TUKARAM W/O. GUNDU BANDAGI,
AGE : 25 YEARS, OCC : MASSON WORK,
R/O. BASTWAD, BELGAUM.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH V. BADIGER, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
PRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
(HIREBAGEWADI P.S.)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH,AT DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, Addl. SPP)
***
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE
THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.198/2012 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELGAUM, IN CRIME NO.17/2012 IN HIREBAGEWADI P.S.
FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 302, 498-A, 504 R/W 34 OF
IPC.
2
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING
ORDER
Petitioners ranked as accused No.1 and 2 in Cr. No.17/12 are in judicial custody facing charges for the offence punishable under Section 323, 307, 498-A & 504 of IPC. They seek bail.
2. State has opposed relief sought.
3. Heard.
4. The prosecution case is Malu, an young girl, was married to petitioner No.2 - Tukaram according to the customary rites in the community on 24.05.2011 and she stayed in the house occupied by accused situate at Bastwad Village. Within one month after marriage Malu (since deceased) was harassed on one pretext or other. Petitioner No.1 - Smt. Omakka, is alleged to have commented on her looks and harassed her in all ways and finding fault in everything she did. Petitioner No.2 - Tukaram, husband of 3 the girl joined his mother to aggravate the cruelty. The life of Malu was therefore a misery.
5. It is alleged, not satisfied with what they were doing the petitioner No.1 - Omakka poured kerosene from kerosene lamp on Malu in the early hours of 28.01.2012 and set fire. Consequent to such fire Malu suffered injuries and was shifted to hospital by neighbors as also her mother in law. In the hospital her condition deteriorated. Treating it as Medico Legal Case, memo was sent to jurisdictional Police, who reached to spot and recorded her statement.
6. In the statement Malu, the victim, while narrating her condition after marriage directly indicted petitioner No.1 - Omkaramma, her mother-in-law, as responsible for setting fire to her. Though she described petitioner No.2 also as the abettor in the crime she did not attribute any overt acts against him. That became the FIR and investigation commenced. During investigation Taluka Magistrate was summoned, who recorded statement of victim on 29.01.2012. The victim reiterated her version of 4 the incident spelling out that petitioner No.1 was the author of the injuries caused to her by fire and petitioner No.2 herein was the abettor. She could not survive despite treatment. That second statement became dying declaration statement as admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act relating to cause of her death, which gains evidentiary value and due credence has to be attached to it. In view of such statement it could be said that there is strong prima facie case at this juncture against the petitioner No.1 in causing death of Malu willfully and intentionally falling within the mischief of Section 302 of IPC.
7. Therefore, considering all attending circumstances she deserves no bail. Therefore, her request for bail is rejected.
8. So far as the petitioner No.2 - Tukaram is concerned, the victim has described him as an abettor along with petitioner No.1, but he was absent from the place of crime when the incident occurred.
5
9. Being of this view the petitioner No.2 could be admitted to bail. Hence, the order:
ORDER The petition is allowed in part. Petition filed by the petitioner No.1 - Omkaramma is rejected. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, he is admitted to bail, subject to following conditions:
a) He shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-
to the satisfaction of the trial court;
b) He shall report to the SHO of jurisdictional police station till framing of the charge once in a week, i.e. on every Saturday between 7.00 a.m. and 7.00 p.m. and
c) He shall not tamper with prosecution material or influence witness in any manner.
Learned ASPP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE VK