Karnataka High Court
Sri.Lagamanna Pundalik Yaragatti vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 March, 2020
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100184/2020
BETWEEN:
SRI LAGAMANNA PUNDALIK,
YARAGATTI, AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HANJANATTI, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
THROUGH HUKKERI POLICE STATION,
HUKKERI TAL: HUKKERI,
DIST BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
Cr.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL AND
PETITIONER MAY KINDLY BE ENLARGED ON BAIL IN C.C.
NO.957/2019 (HUKKERI P.S.CR NO. 87/2019) ON THE FILE
OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUKKERI FOR
OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 498A IPC (NOW
PENDING ON THE FILE V ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN S.C. NO.27/2020)
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the petitioner's counsel and the learned HCGP appearing for the State.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that this petitioner has committed murder of his wife by strangulating her and based on the complaint, the Police have registered the case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
3. The contention of the petitioner before this court is that he is innocent and he has not committed the offence alleged against him. It is also contended that the quarrel taken place with regard to milk vending and this petitioner is the husband of the victim.
4. The investigation has already been completed and the Police have filed the charge sheet. Having considered the material on record, it does not 3 attract the ingredients of Section 302 of IPC. At the most it attract 304 Part II of IPC. There was no intention to take away the life. The counsel in support of his contention he relied upon unreported order passed in Crl.P.No.5922/2017 contending that this court enlarged the petitioner on bail in the said criminal petition coming to the conclusion that at the most it may fall under Section 304 Part II of IPC. It is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The counsel referred the matter to contend that the said order is applicable to the case on hand.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP would contend that the incident has taken place in the matrimonial home, that too at 10.00 p.m. and there are eye witness i.e., minor children of the victim and neibourers after hearing the sound they are rushed to the house and they are also witnessed the incident. Medical evidence also discloses that cause of death is due to 4 strangulation and there is prima facie case against the petitioner, hence prays this court to reject the petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for State and on perusal of the material on record, FSL report discloses that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of compression of neck and also the incident that had taken place in the night at 10.00 p.m. that too in the matrimonial home and when there are eye witness to the incident and the very contention it may fall under Section 304 part II of IPC cannot be accepted at this juncture. The fact is that he compressed the neck and medical report is also clear that the cause of death is due to compression of neck and when such being the case and the contention of the petitioner at the most to attract 304 Part II of IPC cannot be decided and the same is matter of trial. There is no intention, cannot be accepted at this stage. 5
7. The reasons assigned in the Crl.P.No.5922/2017 is not applicable to the case on hand and in the said case quarrel was continuing he went inside in the middle of the quarrel and stabbed and only it was one stab injury and hence, considering the material available on record in the case on hand I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
In view of the discussion made above, the above criminal petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE MNS/