Karnataka High Court
Babu @ Lawrence vs State Of Karnataka on 23 March, 2010
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATABA AT BAI GALORE: DATED THIS THE 238? DAY OF MARCH 20700-. -- BEFORE CRIMINAL PETITION No 5897" 20 lo | BETWEEN: Babu @ Lawrence S/o. Anthoni Swamy Aged 32 vears . Ra: Near Marivamima Temple Bhattarahalli, Virgonagar Post. Banvalore-49, 06.05 ae Petitioner (By Srivuths K.S. Vishwanath & Gangadharappa. Advocates} AND: State of Karnatake. By K.R.Purain Police, (Rep. by State Pubiic Prosec tor . Respondent! 7 (By Sri PMN IWwald. Addl SPP} vhis ap setition is filed under section 439 Cr.P.C.. praying 1d) e niarge the. petitioner on bail in Crime No, 276, /2009 61 KR Paras Police Station. Bangalore City. pending in SCN, 96 / 6G0G. on the file ol Presiding Olficer., [° POC-OMIN. - Be ingalore. revisiere d for an offence punishable under ~seclion 302 of IPC. _ This petition coming on for orders Unis day. the Court made the following: ow ORDER
The petitioner is laeing charge for am. offence punishable under section 302 of 1.P.C. and he iscin judicial».
custody alter his arrest in Crime No. 276/2009, 2, Heard,
3. The prosecution case totally: resis on the statement given by Manjula [deceased victim)... in which she has diselosed the [acts relating to the Suffering: of burn injuries. The ineident is "staked to have occurred on 18.07.2009 a! 6.30 p.m ir her House In Lhe first statement recorded al Victoria Hospital by ASH Shivanina. she had stated that she was living iy Gayathri Layout along with her husband, abu _ and she heel two children. That while she was trving to light "pump stove for making coffee, she noticed malhuretoring and icied to blow air. Accidentally fire erupted ard burnt her
- face. hands. chest anc wearing apparels caught fire. She U ga) Ss hela. no one responsible for such accident, ge
4. However. on 20.07.2009, while under treatment. she gave a second stalement in which she referred Lo petiviGuey, Her version is that she married Ramanji twelve yedrs age. | and begot two children. She was living with pévitioner, whe was not her husband. On the cate al iicidenit, he qnarrele' with her regarding money she earned in & garment factory. When she refused to pay the money. auarret aggravated and in a fit of rage. petitioner poured kerosene on her and se:
fire. While absolving her lexally married husband, she held the peiitioner respensibte. Dying declaration is admissible under section 39 of the indian Evidence Act.
5. The learnea. course: lor petitioner tries to cispel such material othe grounded ria the first statement given by her was Eelore the ASL and requires chie credence. Regardiiy the. second statement. he submits that it is a concocted version tutored. by some one and not reliable.
N-
6. In the cireumstances, we have to see whether a prin lacie case is made oul against the petitioner for asseriors oHence punishable under section 302 of the IPC.
the petinioner were not married. Die t matrimonial dispete. she lefi her husband and startedivng with the petitioner lor four years. But in the hist statelnent, 'she has suppressed the fact. that the petitioner is Hot. her husband, Henee, the first statement is not actually correct, &G far as her lite pattern is concerned, The. first. statement of afleged accidental! burn is difficult lo believe: AS against this. in the second Statement: she Has eategorically stated the actual haets relating Lo her life "and what happened. She bias mentioned. that, the petisioner afier setting fire by pouring kerosene, had" put blanket on her ancl that is the reason petitioner had "Suffered injuries. Be that as it gnay. the
-_cireuinstances in which offence is committed shows. it "occurred | her house where pelitioner was also burni ane the wircumstances narraied in the second statemeri were eal giverl by her in anticipation of death. Lndoubtedhy, ie statement given. in anticipation of death ASSUMES significarice than the statement given in the hope ol life. Phe. first statement was given in the Hope Ob life. While the Secon: . statement appears lo be in anticipation on. death: Soon alter . 8iving statement. the next day she shad suecuanbed: 1O injuries. in the cireurmstances. bk. find thas. the materia! collected by the prosecution suificiontiy indicts ihe petitioner and brings out nexus betwee his acts in the death ol wietin. The petitioner descives 110 leniency. Merely because he is in judicial custody 1s: no ground 10 grant 'bail in view of gravity ol olfeniee comiraiiiech..
3, The petition is accdrdingly dismissed.
sd/-
JUDG