Karnataka High Court
Rajappa @ Rajkumar S/O Nagappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 November, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201477/2021
BETWEEN:
RAJAPPA @ RAJKUMAR
S/O NAGAPPA CHANDANKERA
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER
R/O KANDGOL VILLAGE, TQ. KALAGI
DIST. KALABURAGI-585312
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVASHARANA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
KALAGI POLICE STATION
DIST. KALABURAGI-585312
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.32/2020 OF KALGI POLICE STATION, DIST. KALABURAGI,
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498(A), 302, 304(B) OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4
OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC CHITTAPUR, DIST.
KALABURAGI IN C.C.NO.197/2020 OF RESPONDENT KALGI PS
AS PER CHARGE SHEET.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.32/2020 of Kalagi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B), 302 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that marriage of the deceased-Asharani with petitioner was solemnized in the year 2019 at Allamaprabhu Temple in Talamadagi village and at the time of marriage, the petitioner was given three tholas of gold ornaments, cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and household articles in the presence of the well-wishers and relatives. After 3 marriage, for one-two months, the petitioner looked after the deceased very well and thereafter, subjected the deceased to harassment in demand of dowry and therefore, an amount of Rs.45,000/- was given in the November 2019 and the petitioner was advised to look after the deceased well. Again, he continued harassing the deceased and in the month of January, 2020 an amount of Rs.50,000/- was given. Inspite of the same, he continued to harass the deceased both physically and mentally. On 08.03.2020 at about 6.45 p.m., the petitioner assaulted her by hand and with stick on her abdomen, back and also strangulated her and committed the murder of his wife. Based on the material on record and after conducting investigation, the police have filed chargesheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304(B), 498(A) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 4
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as per the FSL report, there was no evidence of fracture of thyroid cartilage and there is no hyoid bone in the neck structure which clearly shows that there was no blunt force used with an intention to commit the murder of the deceased. The medical report is silent with regard to the strangulation is concerned. The learned counsel also submits that petitioner is in custody from 16.03.2020 and the investigation has been completed and no need for pre- trial detention. He also submitted that the mother of the deceased died on 21.08.2021 due to snake bite and no one is there to take care of his father who is old aged. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the postmortem report clearly discloses that there were nail marks over neck region, 5 four over right side and three over left side of neck with rupture of neck muscles; contusion and hemorrhage of neck region and neck muscle seen abrasion mark measuring 4x3 cm., is seen just below left mammary region; abrasion mark 7 x 3 cm., is seen over back below right side scapular region and blood seen oozing from nostrils. Hence, it is clear that she was subjected to assault and strangulation. The cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of compression over neck and there is prima facie material against the petitioner that he has committed the murder. Hence, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and on perusal of the postmortem report, it is clear that the cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of compression over neck. The postmortem report 6 discloses that there were nail marks over neck region, four over right side and three over left side of neck with rupture of neck muscles; contusion and hemorrhage of neck region and neck muscle seen abrasion mark measuring 4x3 cm., is seen just below left mammary region; abrasion mark 7 x 3 cm., is seen over back below right side scapular region and blood seen oozing from nostrils. The incident has taken place in the matrimonial home and specific allegations are made against the petitioner that prior to committing the murder, the complainant has given additional dowry twice i.e., Rs.45,000/- and Rs.50,000/-, immediately after the marriage in the month of November, 2019 and January 2020. The murder of the deceased has taken place within a span of one year of marriage and having considered these material on record, there is prima facie material against the petitioner. As to whether the petitioner had intention of committing the murder of the deceased or not, has to be tested during the trial and 7 the same requires full fledged trial. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 16.03.2020 is not a ground for granting bail in the case of heinous offence of committing murder of his wife within a span of one year of their marriage.
7. In view of the observations made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*