Smt. Shashikala vs The State of Karnataka

N. Ananda, J.—The petitioner in Crl.P. 5835/2013 and petitioner in Crl.P. 5639/2013 are arrayed as accused no. 3 and 1 in S.C. No. 44/2013, pending trial for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC. They have sought for bail. Heard Sri. Shankarappa, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Advocate for the State.

The investigation records would reveal the following:

Accused no. 3 is the wife of deceased Rangaswamy @ Yogananda and she is residing in Virajpet Taluk.

Accused no. 1 is the resident of Biokeri village, Virajpet Taluk. He had illicit intimacy with accused no. 3 and this fact came to the notice of deceased. He took strong objection for the conduct of accused no. 3. Therefore, accused no. 1 and 3 thought of eliminating the deceased. They hired accused no. 2 assuring him to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Accused no. 1 to 3 entered into conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. In furtherance of conspiracy, accused no. 1 and 3 took the deceased to some isolated place and committed his murder and thereafter, they threw the dead body of deceased into Devaraja Neeravari Channel near Srirangapatna. Accused no. 3 lodged a missing complaint to make it appear that her husband was missing from the house and misdirect the investigation. After the dead body was noticed, first information was lodged. The stolen articles belonging to deceased were recovered from the possession of accused on the information volunteered by accused no. 2.

The investigation officer has collected evidence to show that accused no. 1 and 3 were in constant touch with each other before the commission of offence and after the commission of offence. The voluntary statement given by accused no. 2 has led to recovery of weapon of assault.

Sri. Shankarappa, learned counsel for petitioners submits that accused no. 3 had acted in a bonafide manner and she had lodged a missing complaint.

The investigation records would reveal that accused no. 3 had lodged a missing complaint to mislead the investigation. The investigation records would prima-facie reveal motive for commission of offence. The conspiracy entered into between accused no. 1 to 3 and recovery of incriminating articles on the information volunteered by accused no. 1 to 3 and conduct of accused no. 3 in lodging a missing complaint would make out a prima-facie case against accused no. 1 and 3.

In view of the above, I hold that there is prima-facie case against petitioners for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC. Considering the gravity of offences, nature of allegations made against petitioners, it would not be safe to release the petitioners on bail. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.