Sahebanna S/o Kenchappa Vibhutihalli vs The State of Karnataka Represented by Addl. SPP Kalaburagi Bench

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.194/2016 (C.C.No.366/2016) of Sindagi Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, the marriage of the deceased-Annapurna @ Annakka was performed along with the petitioner and out of the said marriage, they have begotten four children. The petitioner and the deceased were residing separately. The petitioner used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased. The deceased started demanding share in the property of the petitioner. In that light, elderly persons of their community held the panchayat and some share has been allotted in the house and land. But being unsatisfied, the deceased used to come to the house of the petitioner and was quarreling with him by demanding more property as such, animosity developed between the deceased and the petitioner. The petitioner was angry on the deceased. In that light, on 05.07.2016 at about 2.00 p.m., when the deceased had been to the land of the petitioner to ask additional share, she started quarreling. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, with an intention to finish off, has assaulted the deceased with an axe and thereby, caused the death. All the people went to the field and by seeing the dead body, they filed a complaint. Subsequently, the petitioner informed the same to CW.6-Shayappa.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the allegations made in the complaint at the most would attract the provisions of Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of IPC and not Section 302 of IPC. He has further contended that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and except the extra judicial confession made by the petitioner before CW.6-Shayappa Paramanad Pujari, no other evidence is available in this case. He has also contended that extra judicial confession is considered to be very weak type of evidence and it has to be looked into in corroboration with other evidence. He has further contended that recovery and extra judicial confession will not take the legal proof. As the charge sheet has already been filed, the petitioner is not required for investigation and interrogation. He has also contended that petitioner hails from a respectable family and he has got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of he being absconded. He has further contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.

On the contrary, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently contended that petitioner himself has given voluntary statement immediately after the commission of the offence before his close relative and thereafter, axe has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. He has also contended that there are eyewitnesses to substantiate the fact that there was a civil dispute between the petitioner and the deceased and even he used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased. He has also contended that there is prima facie material to show that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence and the said fact corroborates with the postmortem report. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

I have gone through the contents of the charge sheet material and other documents produced along with the petition.

The entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession said to have been made by the petitioner before CW.6-Shayappa and recovery at the instance of the petitioner. Whether the offence alleged against the petitioner amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder or not is a question of fact which has to be ascertained only at the time of trial. At this juncture, it cannot be held that the said act of the petitioner would attract the provision of Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of IPC. Be that as it may. On going through the contents of the charge sheet material, it would indicate that there was civil dispute between the petitioner and the deceased and the deceased used to quarrel with the petitioner by demanding more properties even though panchayat was held and some properties were allotted to her and in that light, there was a dispute. On going through the contents of the postmortem report, there are as many as seven injuries and even the doctor who has conducted the postmortem examination has opined that the death was due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of injuries sustained by the deceased. The postmortem report indicates the following injuries:

i. Laceration over occipital region measuring 12cm x 4cm bone deep, underneath skull is fractured edges are clean cut, blood clots present.

ii. Laceration over left cheek measuring 4cm x 3cm muscle deep, blood clots present.

iii. Laceration over neck just below the mandible measuring 10cm x 3cm bone deep, mandible fractured at body edges are clean cut blood clots present.

iv. Laceration over back of neck measuring 11cm x 3cm cervical vertebra deep edges are clean cut blood clots present.

v. Laceration over back of right side of neck measuring 4cm x 2cm edges are clean cut blood clots present.

vi. Laceration over back of left ear measuring 3cm x 1cm edges are clean cut blood clots present.

vii. Laceration over back of neck measuring 3cm x 2cm edges are clean cut blood clots present.

The injuries suffered by the deceased and the circumstances under which the petitioner has committed the murder of the deceased appears to be a serious one. Though there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, on going through the entire material, it would indicate the petitioner has mercilessly killed the deceased. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offence committed, I feel that it is not just and proper to grant bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.