SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mallappa S/O Gireppa Ninganur vs State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

Dated this the 17th Day of March 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

Criminal Petition No. 100358/2017
Between:

Mallappa s/o Gireppa Ninganur,
Age: 41 years, Occ.: Coolie,
R/o Bakshi Plot, Mudhol,
Tal.: Mudhol, Dist.: Bagalkot.
– Petitioner
(By Sri S.C. Bhuti, Advocate)

And:

State of Karnataka
Represented by PSI,
Mudhol Police Station,
By its Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building, Dharwad.
– Respondent
(by Sri Praveen K. Uppar, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under 439 of Cr.P.C.,
seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with S.C.
No. 6/2016 on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Bagalkot to sit at Jamakhandi for the offences punishable u/S
498A, 323, 307, 302 of IPC etc.

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following:
2

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Govt. Pleader for the State. Perused the

records. A lady by name Manawwa wife of Shankrappa of

Saidapur, Mudhol Taluk, lodged a complaint on 27.06.2015.

2. The brief allegations are that, the complainant’s

daughter by name Shaila was given in marriage to the

petitioner about 20 years ago. They were blessed with two

children by name Girish and Shashank. About 7-8 years

prior to the incident the petitioner was addicted to alcohol

and he was spending money lavishly and he was always

demanding money from the deceased. It appears, in this

regard there was quarrel between the husband and the wife.

The deceased was looking after the family by doing some

poultry business. There were some compromise between the

parties and the petitioner has accepted to take care of the

children. In that passion they were pulling on their life. In

this background on 26.06.2015 the complainant came to
3

know about the deceased being admitted to the hospital on

the allegation of consumption of poison. Immediately she

went to the hospital along with her grandson, i.e., Girish son

of the petitioner and in the hospital, it is alleged that

deceased told that her husband-petitioner, has forcibly

administered poison to her. Subsequently she died in the

hospital and the Police have registered a case for the offence

u/S 302 of IPC after the death of the deceased. The Police

have also investigated the matter and submitted the charge

sheet.

3. Of course there is some material available on record in

the FIR and the statement of the witnesses that the deceased

told them that her husband has administered poison to her.

The postmortem report and the FSL report shows that the

stomach contents disclose presence of carbonate insecticide.

It is also in the charge sheet papers that the deceased has left

a death note wherein she has requested to see that the house

property should be given to her son and she also implicated
4

the accused person only to the extent of ill treatment and

harassment. There is no mention in the death note with

regard to administering any poison to her. Therefore, it

creates a serious doubt whether due to ill treatment or

harassment she committed suicide by consuming insecticide

or really the accused has administered poison to her.

4. Apart from the above, in the charge sheet papers the

opinion of Dr. Hanamant Gudappanavar, working as a Doctor

in Dr.Biradar Hospital, in which the deceased was admitted

at the initial stage, show that, when the victim was admitted

to the hospital she was not in a position to talk. This also

creates a serious doubt whether the deceased could have

given such an oral dying declaration before her mother and

son, etc. All these circumstances have to be clarified by the

prosecution during the course of full dressed trial. Whether

the offence u/S 302 or 306 of IPC has to be ascertained after

the evidence being let in by the prosecution.
5

5. Under the above said facts and circumstances as the

charge sheet has already been filed and the petitioner has

been in judicial custody since 04.08.2015 and the trial may

also take considerable time, I am of the opinion, petitioner is

entitled to be enlarged on bail but on stringent conditions as

there are no previous bad antecedents alleged against the

petitioner. Hence, the following order is passed.

ORDER

Petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be released in

connection with S.C. No. 6/2016 on the file of I Addl. District

and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot to sit at Jamakhandi for the

offences punishable u/S 498A, 323, 307, 302 of IPC, on

following conditions.

1. The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum

of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety for the likesum

to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

2. The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution

witnesses;

6

3. The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly on all the

future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for

genuine reasons;

4. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial

Court without prior permission of the Court till the case

registered against him is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE
bvv

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation