Erappa vs The State of Karnataka

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under

Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.311/2016.

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.

The complaint averments shows that complainant is the Principal of Girls High School and Junior College, Austin Town, Bangalore-560047 and

also working as a Professor in the said College since 3 years. In the said School one Smt.Lingamma and petitioner Erappa were working as

Security Guards and were residing in the room of the above mentioned school and Lingamma having one female child by name Shaila studying in

9th standard in the same School. She is said to be the foster daughter of the accused/petitioner. That on 19.12.2016 in the morning at about 9.30

a.m. asusal the school was opened, the complainant and other Teachers were discharging their work and at about 9.45 a.m. in the morning, the

daughter of Lingamma came and informed that her mother fell in the sump of the School. The complainant also noticed the dead body of

Lingamma floating on the water of the tank. It is stated that the petitioner Erappa and Lingamma used to quarrel with each other very often and

they used to pacify the same. On coming to know about the death of the deceased, the petitioner was not attending to the school duty and was

missing. It is stated that the petitioner having picked up quarrel with the deceased would have probably assaulted and murdered her and later put

her in the sump. On the basis of the said complaint, case was registered for the alleged offences.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The case of the

prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. Though prosecution claims that C.W.10 is the eyewitness to the incident, but his statement came to

be recorded nearly after 45 days. Except him, there are no other eyewitnesses to the incident. so far as the alleged recovery is concerned, the

house is not exclusively in possession of the petitioner. Therefore, the said material cannot be relied upon. He has also submitted that the materials

show that on 16.12.2016 petitioner has attended to his work in the school. There is no acceptable material produced by the prosecution to show

the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offences. It is also submitted that since three months deceased and the petitioner were

residing separately. Now the investigation is completed and chargesheet is also filed. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be

enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that prosecution materials show that both

deceased as well as the petitioner were residing together in the same house along with their foster daughter Shaila. It is also his submission that

from 16.12.2016, the present petitioner remained absconding till his arrest by the police. The conduct of the petitioner clearly shows about his

involvement in committing the alleged offences. Being the person residing with deceased he has not lodged the complaint before the police nor

informed to the relatives of the deceased. There is a recovery of the wooden club at the instance of the present petitioner in the presence of panch

witnesses. Hence, he has submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

Prosecution case is that deceased as well as the present petitioner were staying together in one room given by the school, along with their foster

daughter. In the complaint also same thing is mentioned. Therefore, at this stage, the contention of the learned counsel that they were not residing

together since three months is also to be appreciated in view of the contentions raised in the complaint by the complainant. The statement of the

foster daughter C.W.5 also goes to show that there used to be quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased. She has stated that when she

returned from Bombay as the school was reopened, she has not seen her foster father, the petitioner herein, so also, her mother. The statement of

C.W.5 supports the contention of the prosecution that petitioner remained absconding. When it is the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that petitioner is not involved in committing such offences, then the natural conduct of the petitioner would have been to immediately

inform the police about the incident that the deceased herself has fell down in the sump, drowned and died. Even he has not informed to the family

members of the deceased, on the contrary, the materials show that he absconded. When he was residing with the deceased in the same house

along with his foster daughter, it is for the petitioner to explain the circumstances under which the incident took place. The burden is on the part of

the petitioner to explain and it cannot be on the prosecution.

Looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion that prosecution has placed prima facie material as against the petitioner of his

involvement in committing the alleged offences. It is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is

hereby rejected.