Krishnamurthy vs State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

The petitioner is accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 316 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is alleged by the complainant that the petitioner had seduced his daughter and had refused to marry her. It is only after much compulsion it is said that the petitioner had married. There was no love lost between the petitioner and his wife. When she was married she was said to be four months pregnant and in the ninth month of her pregnancy she had developed stomach pain. It is alleged that the petitioner had taken her out in the dead of the night in an autorickshaw purportedly to a hospital on account of her stomach pain and is said to have met with an accident in which the complainant''s daughter is said to have died.

The post mortem report of the deceased Chaitra is said to have revealed on dissection of the neck portion, blood extravasation over strap muscles and thyroid, with fracture of underlying thyroid cartilage. The doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination is said to have opined that the death was due to compression of neck. Therefore it is on this basis that complainant had alleged that the deceased had been murdered and the accident was stage managed to cover up the crime. The Court below has accepted the contention and has held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail as there were very suspicious circumstances prevalent in the manner in which the deceased had died.

The other reason assigned is that the petitioner who had apparently taken his wife during the night hours to hospital alone, in an auto rickshaw when other family members were present in the house. He had not bothered to seek any one''s assistance. Taking out the deceased alone in an auto rickshaw who was in an advanced stage of pregnancy at mid-night pointed to a possible design on the part of the petitioner to kill her and therefore the Court below has denied bail.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complainant was always opposed to the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased. It is on account of this animosity and being distraught on hearing about Chaitra''s death, a false complaint is foisted against the petitioner.

It is contended that it is a fact that the petitioner''s wife was pregnant and in the night, on account of stomach pain developed by his wife he had taken her to hospital in an auto rickshaw which had met with an accident, in which Chaitra had died and there was no intention to commit the murder of Chaitra. The fact that she had accompanied the petitioner in the auto rickshaw, in which they were travelling had gone off the road and had toppled would indicate that there was a genuine accident. It is the imagination of the complainant to claim that the petitioner had murdered her only on the basis of the manner in which the Chaitra had died, namely by a compression of the neck. The post mortem report however, did not indicate that she was either strangulated or throttled to death.

The further suspicion that the petitioner had not taken the assistance of any one of the family members in proceeding to the hospital is concerned, it is stated that there was nobody living along with the petitioner and Chaitra and they lived alone. Admittedly, it was in the dead of the night that the petitioner took her to the hospital and there was nobody to accompany them.

In the above circumstances the petitioner claims that it is unlikely that the petitioner would murder his wife in an advanced stage of pregnancy and the suspicion carried by the prosecution is only an extension of the suspicion that is created by the father-in-law of the petitioner.

Though the learned Government Pleader would seek time to secure the records, the counsel for the petitioner would point out that the records are available and it is not a fit case where there should be further delay in the consideration of the petitioner''s bail application.

Given the above facts and circumstances, a mere suspicion that the death of Chaitra was by possible strangulation or throttling cannot by itself be a ground to detain the petitioner in custody. It is a matter which can only be established at the trial. The petitioner would be therefore entitled to be enlarged on bail.

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly seek to influence the prosecution witnesses.

(iv) He shall appear before the Investigation officer as and when required and shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer.

(v) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

(vi) In case of violation of any of these conditions, the Court is at liberty to pass suitable orders.