Anand Kallu vs State of Karnataka

Jawad Rahim

Petitioner, who is in judicial custody, being accused of committing murder of his wife by pouring kerosene and setting fire to her, seeks bail. The prosecution has opposed it. Heard both sides.

Case papers reveal, petitioner was married to Seema about 10 years ago and they lived together. It is alleged Smt. Sarojini Bentik Joseph lodged a report before Mahila Police Hubli - Dharwad, reporting that her daughter Seema was married to the petitioner, who treated her cruelly making her life miserable. Not satisfied with torturous act he indulged in pouring kerosene on her on the afternoon of 28.02.2012 at 4.30 PM and set her to fire. Consequent to which she suffered burn injuries and was admitted to KIMS Hospital, Hubli. Though treatment was given but she could not survive and died.

Initially, report was for the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC, but upon death of Seema it was converted to Section 302 of IPC. In pursuance to that report he was arrested and confined to prison. Prosecution papers also show that at the time of admission Doctor had questioned Seema about cause of such injuries, to which she informed the Doctor she herself had poured kerosene and set fire. The Medical Officer also records that patient revealed to him chat on earlier two occasions similar attempts were made by her on her life. There is also mention chat she was not administered any treatment for her psychiatric imbalance.

Prosecution does not relay on it but relies on the statement said to have been given by deceased herself during treatment before Inspector of Police directly indicting the petitioner as assailant. In the statement recorded by Police there is narration of incident clearly describing overt acts of petitioner in pouring kerosene on her and setting fire.

If we go by the second statement there is sufficient prima facie case against the petitioner to raise charge for the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC. At the same time the first statement made by her before the Doctor also cannot be ignored. Of course, these two factors are subject to, trial. Petitioner has already been interrogated and Investigation Officer has made statement that he is not required for any further interrogation. Considering the fact that since February 2012 the petitioner is in judicial custody and there are two statements, which contradicts in so far as cause of death is concerned, he is admitted to bail, subject to following conditions:

a) He shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-with one surety to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate;

b) He shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or influence them in any manner.