Mahamed Raffiq vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 November, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4970/2017

BETWEEN

Mahamed Raffiq
s/o Mohamed Anif
aged about 30 years
Labourer
r/o Rajeevghandhinagara
Tumakuru Town
Tumakuru Taluk
Tumakuru District-572101. .. Petitioner

(By Sri Chethan B, Advocate)

AND

The State of Karnataka
Thilak Park Police
Tumakuru – 572 101
Tumakuru District

Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bangalore-560001. .. Respondent

(By Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
2

This criminal petition is filed u/S.439 Cr.P.C
praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.82/2016 of Thilak Park Police Station, Tumakuru
District for the offences p/u/s 498A, 302 of IPC.

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

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 of

IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime

No.82/2016.

2. The facts of the prosecution case as per the

complaint averments, the mother is the complainant of

the deceased. On 28.2.2016, her daughter got married

to the accused and subsequent to the marriage, she

stayed happily for a period of five months along with her

husband and her-in-laws house situated at Heggade

colony. For the past one month, her son-in-law and her
3

daughter stayed in a rented house at Rajivgandhinagar

and at that point of time, the accused subjected her

both physical and mental cruelty and forced her to

bring additional dowry. Whenever the accused went to

work, he left her daughter at their place and forced her

to bring additional dowry. On the said day, when the

daughter of the complainant did not come to their

house, she sent her son to her daughter’s house and

when he went and saw the deceased suffering and

struggling, and her son informed his mother, who went

and asked her daughter and the daughter informed that

her husband/accused had assaulted her and squeezed

her neck and tried to kill her. Immediately the

complainant took her daughter to Tumkur Government

Hospital and got her admitted and on the same day at

about 4.00 p.m. due to failure in the treatment, she

died. Hence, the complaint was lodged and registered
4

for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and

302 of IPC.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent –

State.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

made a submission that the petitioner never ill-treated

the deceased either physically or mentally. He had

treated the deceased properly. The learned counsel

submits that the deceased was suffering from low BP

and that is the reason for her death. He also made a

submission that the dying declaration of the deceased

was not recorded. The learned counsel further submits

that even looking into the entire prosecution materials,

there is no prima facie case. He also submits that now

the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also
5

filed. The petitioner is in custody since one year.

Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable

conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to regular

bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader made a submission that looking to the

prosecution materials, there is prima facie case showing

the involvement of petitioner in committing the offences.

Learned Government Pleader also made a submission

that looking to the prosecution materials collected

during the investigation, they go to show that even in

the medical evidence, the illness caused the death of the

deceased is consistent with other materials on record.

It is alleged that the petitioner and the deceased were

residing in a rented house. Therefore, the burden is on

the petitioner to explain the circumstances under which
6

the death is taken place. Hence, the petitioner is not

entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in

the case.

7. Looking to the complaint averments, it is

stated by the mother of the deceased that after getting

information, she came to the house of the present

petitioner and enquired her daughter, who informed her

mother that her husband pressed the neck forcibly and

made an attempt to commit her murder. So this is the

statement made in the complaint after the death of the

deceased. Such statement becomes oral dying

declaration regarding the cause of death. I have also

perused the medical records. The doctor, who

conducted the autopsy over the body, gave his opinion

that the cause of death is due to manual strangulation.
7

So the opinion of the doctor is consistent with that of

the statement made by the deceased before her mother.

Apart from that, the materials collected during the

investigation also goes to show that the deceased as well

as the present petitioner were residing in a rented

house. When that is so, the petitioner/accused has to

explain the circumstances as per the principle under

Section 106 of Evidence Act. These facts are exclusively

within the knowledge of the present petitioner.

Considering these aspects of the matter, I am opinion

that this is not a fit case to grant bail in favour of the

petitioner.

Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bkm.

Leave a Comment

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