Karnataka High Court Manjunatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7570/2013
Aged about 27 years,
Occ: Working in Call-Centre,
R/o. III Cross,
Shimoga-577 201. .. PETITIONER (By Sri. Ravindra B. Deshpande, Adv.) AND:
The State of Karnataka by
Mahila Police Station,
Shimoga-577 201. .. RESPONDENT (By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.21/2013 of Mahila P.S., Shimoga, for the offences P/U/S 498(A) and 302 of IPC. This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: 2
This petition is filed by petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 307 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.21/2013. After the death of the deceased, the offence under Section 302 of IPC was also inserted.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that looking to the averments made in the complaint itself it shows that there is no allegation that the petitioner was demanding dowry from the deceased and in that connection he was giving ill-treatment to the deceased. The only allegation made in the complaint is that the petitioner was telling to the deceased that she is having black complexion, 3
she has not begotten children and that she is fat and on these grounds, he used to ill-treat the deceased. Learned counsel has also submitted that prosecution has relied upon the dying declaration said to have been recorded by the police, but it does not bear the certificate of the Doctor. The averments made in the complaint as well as the dying declaration are not truthful and it clearly goes to show that dying declaration is a created one. He has submitted that since from the date of arrest petitioner is in custody and now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to bail.
4. As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments has submitted that there is an allegation made in the complaint about the ill-treatment given by the petitioner to the deceased. So also, there is a statement of the brother and sister of the deceased regarding the ill-treatment given by the 4
petitioner. He has submitted that immediately, when she was taken to the hospital, her dying declaration was recorded, wherein she has clearly narrated about how the incident has taken place and that on 9.3.2013 at 1.30 p.m. when she was in the kitchen preparing sambar, petitioner who came from office picked up quarrel with her and poured kerosene oil on her and set fire to her. In view of these materials, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, order passed by the lower Court and other materials placed on record.
6. At the first instance, the case was registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A and 307 of IPC. Later, after the death of the deceased Section 302 of IPC was inserted in the case. It is the case of the prosecution that there is a dying declaration recorded by the police when she was taking treatment 5
in the hospital. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dying declaration bears only thumb impression and not the signature of the deceased and there is no certification by the Doctor to the dying declaration, hence, it is concocted and created one, in the dying declaration itself there is an explanation that as both hands of the deceased were burnt, she was not in a position to put her signature. Further, certification by the Doctor is not the mandate of law, but it is a rule of caution and about these things, the trial Court will ascertain during the course of trial after recording evidence in the matter. But, at this stage, prima facie, there is a dying declaration wherein the deceased has made allegations against the petitioner that he used to give ill-treatment to her and even he was telling to the deceased to go and die and that it is the petitioner who poured kerosene oil on her and lit fire to her. Looking to these materials on record, I am of the opinion that prosecution has placed prima facie material against the petitioner for his involvement in the 6
commission of the alleged offences. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, petition is rejected. Sd/-