Thimmanna @ Sukali Thimmappa @ … vs State Of Karnataka on 24 October, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6435/2017
BETWEEN:

THIMMANNA @ SUKALI THIMMAPPA
@ THIMMAPPA
S/O. NAVILAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO. 125, JAYANTHI VILLAGE,
HONNAVILE, BIDIRE HOBLI,
SHIVAMOGGA 577 222.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI.KIRAN N., ADV.)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SHIVAMOGGA RURAL PS,
SHIVAMOGA 577 202
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.452/2016 OF SHIMOGA RURAL POLICE
STATION, SHIVAMOGGA, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,
302 OF IPC.
2

THIS CRIMINAL 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 his release on bail

of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and

302 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station

Crime No.452/2016.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly

submitted that on the date of alleged incident, the

petitioner was not in station. Hence, there is a false

implication of the petitioner in the case. He has also

submitted that even looking to the complaint averments
3

and the other prosecution material collected during

investigation by the I.O., they will not make out a

prima-facie case against the petitioner about his

involvement in committing the alleged offence. He has

further submitted that there are no eye-witnesses to the

incident and the case of the prosecution rests on

circumstantial evidence and even there are no such

circumstances to establish the chain of link to show

exclusively that it is the petitioner, who committed the

alleged act. Since the date of arrest, the petitioner is in

custody, hence, submitted that by imposing reasonable

conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader, during the course of his arguments has

submitted that, looking to the materials, the petitioner

and the deceased were the only persons, who were

residing in the said house. He has submitted that when
4

the neighbours i.e., C.Ws.8 and 9 went to the said

house immediately after hearing the crying sound of the

deceased, they saw the deceased sustaining so many

injuries and lying on the floor of the house. It is also

submitted that the petitioner gave the voluntary

statement and at his instance the weapon-hammer has

been recovered by the Investigating Officer in the

presence of panch witnesses. Hence, he submitted that

there is material to show the involvement of the

petitioner in committing the alleged offence and

therefore, submitted to reject the petition.

5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on

record.

6. The materials shows that the husband of the

deceased expired about seven years ago, then she was a

widow. The complaint averments further shows that
5

even the wife of the petitioner expired and because of

that reason the family members thought that if the

deceased is given in marriage to the petitioner, they can

lead the marital life. Accordingly, the deceased was

given in marriage to the petitioner. The materials show

that the petitioner and the deceased were the only

persons residing in the house. Since the facts shows

that the deceased and the petitioner were the only

persons staying in the said house, the burden is on the

petitioner to explain as to how the things took place,

because as per Section 106 of Evidence Act, the facts

are exclusively within the knowledge of the petitioner,

the husband of the deceased.

7. Regarding the submission made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was

not in station on that particular day is concerned, it is

nothing but plea of alibi, which will be considered
6

during the course of trial because the prosecution must

have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on

that aspect.

8. Apart from that the materials also show that

the petitioner has given the voluntary statement before

the Investigating Officer during investigation and at his

instance the hammer has been recovered in the

presence of panch witnesses. Looking to the Post

Mortem report, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over

the dead body of the deceased, opined that death is due

to the injuries sustained. Therefore, looking to these

materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that

there is prima-facie case against the petitioner. Hence,

it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the

petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE
BSR

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *