1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6435/2017
BETWEEN:
THIMMANNA @ SUKALI THIMMAPPA
@ THIMMAPPA
S/O. NAVILAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO. 125, JAYANTHI VILLAGE,
HONNAVILE, BIDIRE HOBLI,
SHIVAMOGGA 577 222.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI.KIRAN N., ADV.)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SHIVAMOGGA RURAL PS,
SHIVAMOGA 577 202
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.452/2016 OF SHIMOGA RURAL POLICE
STATION, SHIVAMOGGA, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,
302 OF IPC.
2
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
of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and
302 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station
Crime No.452/2016.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly
submitted that on the date of alleged incident, the
petitioner was not in station. Hence, there is a false
implication of the petitioner in the case. He has also
submitted that even looking to the complaint averments
3
and the other prosecution material collected during
investigation by the I.O., they will not make out a
prima-facie case against the petitioner about his
involvement in committing the alleged offence. He has
further submitted that there are no eye-witnesses to the
incident and the case of the prosecution rests on
circumstantial evidence and even there are no such
circumstances to establish the chain of link to show
exclusively that it is the petitioner, who committed the
alleged act. Since the date of arrest, the petitioner is in
custody, hence, submitted that by imposing reasonable
conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader, during the course of his arguments has
submitted that, looking to the materials, the petitioner
and the deceased were the only persons, who were
residing in the said house. He has submitted that when
4
the neighbours i.e., C.Ws.8 and 9 went to the said
house immediately after hearing the crying sound of the
deceased, they saw the deceased sustaining so many
injuries and lying on the floor of the house. It is also
submitted that the petitioner gave the voluntary
statement and at his instance the weapon-hammer has
been recovered by the Investigating Officer in the
presence of panch witnesses. Hence, he submitted that
there is material to show the involvement of the
petitioner in committing the alleged offence and
therefore, submitted to reject the petition.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail
petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on
record.
6. The materials shows that the husband of the
deceased expired about seven years ago, then she was a
widow. The complaint averments further shows that
5
even the wife of the petitioner expired and because of
that reason the family members thought that if the
deceased is given in marriage to the petitioner, they can
lead the marital life. Accordingly, the deceased was
given in marriage to the petitioner. The materials show
that the petitioner and the deceased were the only
persons residing in the house. Since the facts shows
that the deceased and the petitioner were the only
persons staying in the said house, the burden is on the
petitioner to explain as to how the things took place,
because as per Section 106 of Evidence Act, the facts
are exclusively within the knowledge of the petitioner,
the husband of the deceased.
7. Regarding the submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was
not in station on that particular day is concerned, it is
nothing but plea of alibi, which will be considered
6
during the course of trial because the prosecution must
have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on
that aspect.
8. Apart from that the materials also show that
the petitioner has given the voluntary statement before
the Investigating Officer during investigation and at his
instance the hammer has been recovered in the
presence of panch witnesses. Looking to the Post
Mortem report, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over
the dead body of the deceased, opined that death is due
to the injuries sustained. Therefore, looking to these
materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that
there is prima-facie case against the petitioner. Hence,
it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the
petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSR