Sunitha vs State

K.N. Keshavanarayana

Petitioner is arraigned as Accused No. 1 in Crime No. 115/2012 of Kestur Police Station in Maddur Taluk, Mandya District, registered for the offence punishable u/s 302 r/w. 34 of IPC According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased Puttaswamy, resident of Mallanakuppe village in Maddur Taluk, left the house at 9.00 p.m. on 21.09.2012 and did not return till the morning. At about 6.00 am., on 22.09.2012 when Sri. Sunil, S/o. Puttaswamy, was proceeding on his bicycle, by the side of the road, he saw his father lying dead and immediately, he informed his family members. He suspected that since his father was addicted to liquor, he must have fallen there, but, on turning the dead body, he found ligature marks around the neck. He suspected the hand of this petitioner in the death of his father on the premise that his father had illicit relationship with this petitioner and in that background, he must have been killed by this petitioner and others. Thereafter, the said Sunil lodged a report before the jurisdictional police, based on which, the police registered the aforesaid case against this petitioner arraigning her as Accused No. 1, her husband as Accused No. 2, and brother-in-law as Accused No. 3.

It appears on coming to know of the registration of the case, the petitioner voluntarily surrendered before the jurisdictional Magistrate and thereafter she was given to police custody for a brief period. During interrogation, the petitioner said to have confessed to the crime and thereafter, she was subjected to judicial custody.

The application filed by her for grant of bail came to be rejected by the learned Magistrate. In the meanwhile, on completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet. The matter is yet to be committed to the Court of Sessions. Therefore, the petitioner has presented this petition before this Court.

The petition is opposed by the Respondent-State.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the records made available.

As noticed supra, the complainant, who is the son of the deceased, after seeing his father lying dead, suspected the hand of this petitioner for the death of his father only on the premise that his father had illicit relationship with this petitioner. At this stage, the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, as there are no direct witnesses. The contents of the post-mortem report indicate the cause of death as asphyxia on account of hanging. In order to establish the homicidal death of the deceased, the prosecution mainly relies on the extrajudicial confession said to have been made by Accused No. 2 before CW.5-Madaiah and CW.6-Kumar. Even according to the statement of CWs. 5 & 6, in the night of 21.09.2012, the deceased fully drunk came to the house of this petitioner and tapped the door and when Accused No. 2 opened the door, the deceased went inside and tried to hold this petitioner and at that stage, Accused No. 2 slapped him, as a result, the deceased fell down and thereafter, they strangulated him by hanging and thereafter, the dead body was thrown outside the house.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record, at this stage, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that this petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable with death or life imprisonment. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief of bail. In the result, the petition is allowed. Petitioner-Accused No. 1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 115/2012 of Kestur Police Station, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District, on her executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Magistrate/Sessions Judge and subject to further conditions that,-

i) The petitioner shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

ii) she shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged against her;

iii) she shall appear before the trial Court on all hearing dates without fail; and

iv) she shall not go out of the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court without express permission thereof.