IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100339/2017
C/w.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100510/2017
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100339/2017
BETWEEN
MANJUNATH S/O LATE RAMAPPA,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
R/O: 8TH CROSS
RENUKA NAGAR,
TALUR ROAD, BALLARI.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B ANWAR BASHA, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(THROUGH RURAL P.S. BALLARI)
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD-01.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO. 259 OF
2016 IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 88 OF 2016 REGISTERED IN
RURAL POLICE STATION BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCES
UNDER SECTION 302, 498A AND 34 OF IPC IN (SESSIONS
CASE NO. 88 OF 2016) PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE, IN
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BALLARI.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100510/2017
BETWEEN
SUSHEELAMMA
W/O LATE RAMAPPA,
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: MOBILE CATERING,
R/O: 8TH CROSS,
RENUKA NAGAR,
TALUR ROAD, BALLARI.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI B ANWAR BASHA, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(THROUGH RURAL P.S. BALLARI),
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD-01.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO. 259 OF
2016 (SESSION CASE NO. 88 OF 2016) REGISTERED IN
RURAL POLICE STATION BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCES
UNDER SECTION 302, 498 A AND 34 OF IPC PENDING
TRAIL OF THE CASE BEFORE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioners.
Perused the records.
2. The charge sheet papers discloses that a lady by
name Sridevi (deceased) was given in marriage to Accused
No.1 – Manjunatha, the petitioner in CRL.P.
No.100339/2017. Petitioner No.2 Susheelamma in
CRL.P.No.100510/2017, is no other than the mother of
Accused No.1, who is arrayed as Accused No.2. After the
marriage, for some time, the accused and the deceased
were residing together with all love and affection.
Thereafter, it is alleged that accused persons started ill-
treating and harassing her with an intention to do away
with the life of Sridevi or to drive her to commit suicide on
the motive that A1 was planning to marry some other girl,
4
i.e., close relative of A2. It is in this background, on
19.6.2016 at about 10.00 p.m., in the night hours, A1 and
A2 the petitioners herein have forcibly put some cloth to
the mouth of the deceased and assaulted her and told her
to sleep in the kitchen. In the early hours of 20.06.2016
at about 3.00 a.m., it is alleged that Sridevi was done to
death as A1 and A2 have poured kerosene on her and A1
lit fire on the deceased. He was admitted to the Hospital,
however, she succumbed to the burn injuries on 20.6.2016
at about 5.30 a.m.,
3. During the course of investigation, the police
have recorded the statement of the close relatives of the
deceased as well as the naighbours. The relatives of the
injured victim though categorically stated particularly one
K. Nagaraj, who is the brother, father of the deceased and
one Sri Bangarappa, who is also the relative of the father
of the deceased have categorically stated that on that
particular day, this Nagaraja has shifted the injured to the
Hospital and he has categorically stated that on inquiry,
5
the deceased stated before him that on that particular
day, A1 and A2 gagged her mouth with cloth and though
the deceased attempted to escape from the clutches of A1
and A2, both the accused have poured kerosene on her
and A1 lit fire on the deceased. The Post Mortem
examination report also discloses that the death of the
deceased was due to burn injuries. Of course, the learned
counsel drawn my attention that after the admission of the
injured to the hospital, the police have sought for
examination of the dying declaration of the deceased, but
the doctor has opined that she was not in a condition to
give any statement. That itself, in my opinion is not
sufficient to discard the statement of the said Nagaraj and
Bangarappa. There is no reason as to why, they have to
say false things before the police. Added to that, apart
from the relatives, the naighbours of the accused by
names Renukamma and A. Nagaraj have also stated that
on that particular day of the incident, they heard the
screaming voice of the deceased Sridevi. Immediately,
they went there on 19.6.2016 itself and they observed A1
6
and A2, the petitioners herein were assaulting the
deceased Sridevi and these two witnesses have resolved
the dispute and thereafter, at 10.00 p.m., they went to
their house. Again, on the next day at about 3.00 a.m., in
the early hours they heard the screaming voice of the
deceased. Immediately, they went near the house of the
accused and found the deceased Sridevi was burning.
Immediately, these two persons have tried to extinguish
the fire and shifted her to the Hospital. These witnesses
also scolded the accused persons that they were not taking
any steps in spite of Sridevi was burning. After hearing
these witnesses, the accused persons have also
accompanied the deceased to the Hospital.
4. Looking to the above said facts and
circumstances, though one of the petitioner Susheelamma,
being a lady aged 60 years, the allegations are very severe
in nature and the naighbours and the relatives were all
implicated the accused persons specifically stating about
their overt acts. Hence, at this stage, there is no reason to
7
over come the said statements of the witnesses.
Therefore, in my opinion, the prosecution has got a strong
prima facie case against the petitioners.
5. In that view of the matter, the petitions are
dismissed. The petitioners are not entitled to be enlarged
on bail. As the petitioners have been in Judicial Custody
since the date of offence, it is just and necessary to direct
the trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case
itself preferably within one year from the date of receipt of
the copy of this order.
Registry is hereby directed to send a copy of this
order for expeditious disposal and compliance of the
direction of this court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PL*