Karnataka High Court
Shivaraj S/O Ramanna vs State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2021
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23 R D DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102066/2021
BETWEEN:
SHIVARAJ S/O. RAMANNA
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O: KOTTUR TOWN, TALUKA KOTTUR,
DISTRICT VIJAYANAGAR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH,
THROUGH KOTTUR POLICE STATION,
DISTRICT VIJAYANAGAR
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING BAIL TO
2
PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.74/2021 OF KOTTUR
POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
498A, 304(B), 302, 201 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The sole accused has filed this petition under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.74/2021 of Kottur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304(B), 302, 201 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Smt. Geeta mother of the deceased Pooja has filed a complaint against the petitioner and 3 two others, stating that she is having 2 daughters and 1 son; about 6 years back her daughter Pooja's marriage proposal talks were held and in the said talks about Rs.20,000/- cash, 5 gram gold and cloths were agreed to be given in marriage to the petitioner and accordingly engagement was held with petitioner; about 8 days thereafter, elders informed complainant that petitioner was showing disinterest in marrying Pooja; as such, the complainant and elder had enquired the petitioner and his family members and at that time accused demanded more dowry, therefore, said proposal was broken down; after one year again elders convinced the complainant to give Pooja in marriage and accordingly the complainant had agreed and on 17.12.2015 the marriage of petitioner and 4 deceased Pooja was solemnized; after marriage for few days both were happy and even family members looked after them happily, but after that the petitioner and his family members started to demand dowry and even family members started to harass the deceased; thereafter, complainant and others had advised the family members not to harass the deceased and to look after the deceased happily, but despite it accused were harassing the deceased and on 23.03.2019 quarrel had taken place and in this regard deceased had filed a complaint before the Kottur Police Station and the police authorities had summoned the petitioner and advised him to lead proper marital life; thereafter again elders held Panchayat and advised the petitioner to make separate house and to look after the deceased happily; 5 thereafter deceased and petitioner were living separately and in spite of living separately the petitioner was harassing the deceased; the deceased on 16.05.2021 at about 7.00 p.m. had called the complainant over phone and explained regarding the harassment, the complainant had advised her and assured she would come and advise the petitioner. But on 17.05.2021 at about 3.00 p.m., the petitioner called the complainant and informed that her daughter had died. Immediately complainant rushed to Kottur Hospital and saw her daughter was dead. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.74/2021 against the petitioner and his parents for the offences under Sections 304B, 302 read with 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation charge sheet came to be filed only against accused 6 No.1/petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 and 201 of IPC. The petitioner, who came to be arrested on 18.05.2021 has filed Crl.Misc. No.5476/2021, which was rejected by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete), by order dated 16.10.2021. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. It would be the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the marriage of the petitioner with deceased took place on 17.12.2015 and they begot 2 children and they have lead happy married life. It is 7 his further contention that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, therefore, it is for the prosecution to prove each of the circumstances to establish guilt of the accused. He submits that petitioner had made extra judicial confession before CWs.15 to 17 stating that he had throttled his wife, but on looking to the opinion of the Doctor with regard to cause of death, death is due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation, therefore, he submits it is contrary to the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the petitioner before CWs.15 to 17. It is his further submission that the deceased has two children to look after and there are no others to look after them. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition. 8
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State contended that the offences alleged against the petitioner is heinous offence punishable with death of imprisonment for life. He submits that the deceased earlier to the incident had made a complaint against the petitioner before the same Police Station with regard to harassment for dowry. He further submits that CW.1 mother and CW.6 brother of the deceased have stated regarding demand of dowry by the petitioner. He further submits that since the death of the deceased has taken place in the house of the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to explain the circumstances under which the death has taken place under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. He further submits that charge-sheet material prima facie shows case 9 against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. It is his further submission that, if, the petitioner is granted bail, he will threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records.
7. The marriage of the petitioner with the deceased was solemnized on 17.12.2015 and after marriage they lead happy married life and out of marriage they have begotten two children. It is accusation that the petitioner used to harass the deceased demanding dowry. 10 It is further accusation that the petitioner throttled his wife in his house on 17.05.2021. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances are that petitioner has made extra judicial confession before CWs.15 to 17 wherein it is alleged to have stated that he throttled his wife and the Doctor who conducted Post Mortem examination of the dead body of deceased has stated that death is due to asphyxia (Hyoid bone fracture secondary to strangulation). The said opinion is contrary to the extra confession said to have been made by the petitioner before CWs.15 to 17. As the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, it is for the prosecution to establish each of the 11 circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused. As the charge sheet is filed petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Petitioner has two children to look after. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioner is likely to cause threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
12
ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in Crime No.74/2021 of respondent Police Station subject to the following conditions:
i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Only) with one
surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional
Court.
ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in
tampering and hampering the
prosecution witnesses.
13
iii) Petitioner shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sbs*