SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manjunath S/O Late Ramappa, vs The State Of Karnataka, on 20 March, 2017

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*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 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