Karnataka High Court
Pakeer Sab S/O Moula Sab Nadaf vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 April, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200509/2017
Between:
Pakeer Sab
S/o Moula Sab Nadaf
Age: 32 years, Occ: Coolie
R/o Pinjar Oni, Maski
Tq. Lingasugur, Dist. Raichur
... Petitioner
(By Sri Ishwar Raj S. Chowdapur, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
[Through Maski Police Station
Tq. Lingasugur, Dist. Raichur]
Represented by Additional
State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench
... Respondent
(By Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar M., HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to release the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.2/2017 of Maski Police Station which is pending before
JMFC Lingasugur, Dist. Raichur, which is registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 302 of IPC.
2
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:-
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.02/2017 of Maski Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 302 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, accused got married with the deceased Smt. Chandbee about 6 to 7 years back and they were leading happy marital life for 5 to 6 months, thereafter accused started suspecting the fidelity of the deceased. It is further alleged that despite marital life deceased did not conceive and had not delivered the child. On that ground, accused used to pick up the quarrel with the deceased and used to harass her. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 31.12.2016 at about 8.20 p.m., accused and deceased were in their house at Maski. At that time, 3 the accused picked up quarrel and when they were quarreling, accused throttle the neck of the deceased and immediately thereafter she became unconscious and the other witnesses also came there by hearing hue and cry. Immediately, they took the deceased to the hospital and on the way she died. Therefore, a complaint came to be lodged and on the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered against the accused.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.
4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence alleged against him. The marriage of the petitioner and deceased has taken place about 6 to 7 years back and they were leading happy marital life. It is also 4 contended that the alleged incident has taken place because of the sudden and grave provocation when the deceased told that the accused is impotent and as such she has not begotten any children. It is further contended that the doctor has not given definite opinion that the death is homicidal one. It is further contended that the material facts have been suppressed while filing the complaint. Further, it is contended that the petitioner is having deep root in the society and if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would contend that there is material to show that the petitioner had throttled the neck of the deceased and as a result of the same, she succumbed to the said act of 5 the petitioner. He would also contend that the post mortem report also indicates that the deceased died because of the throttling. He would further contend that immediately after the incident the witnesses have come and they have seen the act of the accused. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have gone through the copy of the complaint and other material produced along with the petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner by bringing to my notice the statement of Nabi Sab would contend that there was a dispute between the petitioner and deceased and when the petitioner told that she has not given birth to any child, then the deceased replied to the petitioner that he himself is impotent, as such she has not given birth to any children. As such, the accused being suddenly provoked has throttled the neck 6 of the deceased. As such, at the most the offence is not coming under the provisions of homicidal death. He would also contend that the accused has not intentionally caused the death of the deceased. It is a simple act under the sudden and grave provocation. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the said act of the petitioner is sudden and grave provocation, that is a matter which has to be considered and appreciated only at time of trial and not at this premature stage. Whether there was any other circumstance or it is a sudden and grave provocation, that is a matter of evidence. Then this Court is having a doubt with regard to the act of the accused whether it comes within the purview of the sudden and grave provocation because of the words, which have been used by the deceased. In my opinion, it will not be coming within the purview of sudden and grave provocation. When the offence is said to have been committed under Section 302 of IPC and it is 7 punishable with death or imprisonment for life, under such circumstances, I feel that there are no good grounds to allow the petition. As such, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE LG