Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 84 (KAR)

Ravi v. State by Arakere Police Station

2010-01-20

A.S.PACHHAPURE

body2010
Judgment : The petition is filed seeking bail having been arrested and charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under: The complainant Chikka Madaiah is a resident of Chennahalli Village in Srirangapatna Taluk. He had a daughter by name Vasantha and about 16 years prior to the complaint, she was given in marriage to one Mahadevaswamy of Gandhinagar in Mysore City. Through the wedlock, two sons were born. They had taken a female child in adoption. Her husband was doing bar bending work and since nine years, they were residing in the house of the complainant in his village. Her husband used to go for his work in the morning at 6 a.m. and was returning at about 8.00 p.m. The deceased Vasantha was working as a Labour in Hare Rama Hare Krishna Factory at Mysore and she used to go for work in the morning at 7.30 a.m. and was returning at 6.30 p.m. 3. On 16-2-2009 at about 6.30 p.m., his daughter returned home after work and he saw her face was pale and when questioned, she stated that while she was returning to the house, on the way near Kumbara Gundi Circle, the petitioner insisted her to be his kept Mistress and in case, if she does not agree, she will be finished and the dead body will be thrown in Cauvery River. He had also threatened not to inform this fact to her parents. Her father informed that he has an urgent work at Bangalore and that he would enquire after his return. Accordingly the complainant went to Bangalore on 18-2-2009 and returned on 20-2-2009 at 7.30 a.m. and at that time, Vasudev, the son of the complainant told that the deceased has not returned to the house since yesterday and they went for search near Kumbar Gundi Circle and some persons there informed that a dead body of a woman has fallen on the bank of Cauvery River and therefore, the complainant and his son went there and saw that it was the dead body of his daughter Vasantha. The hand kerchief was tied to the neck. The hand kerchief was tied to the neck. There was bleeding from the nose and Abrasions on the hands and her vanity bag was found fallen near the dead body and therefore, the complainant after seeing the situation there felt that it must be the petitioner who has committed the murder of his daughter and has thrown the dead body on the bank of the river and therefore, requested to take action against the petitioner. 4. The complaint was registered in Crime No. 33 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. During investigation, the petitioner was arrested and after the completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed and the matter has now been committed to the Sessions Court in SC No. 84 of 2009. 5. The petitioner submits that he is innocent and has not committed any crime and that the allegations made in the complaint are false. It is also his submission that he has been falsely implicated and that there is no evidence against him for the commission of murder of the deceased and causing disappearance of evidence. So also, it is his submission that the entire case is dependent on circumstantial evidence and that he being a law abiding citizen, his presence is not necessary for the purpose of investigation as the charge-sheet has been filed and the case has been committed. He submits that he is ready and wiling to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court for his release on bail. On these grounds, he has sought for the grant of bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and submits that there are strong circumstances in addition to the motive put forth and in case, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility that he would cause threat, force or bring influence on the witnesses and the very purpose of the prosecution will be frustrated, in case if he is released on bail. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned high Court Government Pleader. The point that arises for my consideration is: 8. As could be seen from the post-mortem report which has been produced with the charge-sheet, there was a circular ligature mark at the level of Thyroid Cartilage all around the neck measuring 30 cms. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned high Court Government Pleader. The point that arises for my consideration is: 8. As could be seen from the post-mortem report which has been produced with the charge-sheet, there was a circular ligature mark at the level of Thyroid Cartilage all around the neck measuring 30 cms. In length and 0.5 cms. in width. The Doctor is of the opinion that the death is due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. So, prima facie there is material to show that the deceased was done to death by strangulation. After the arrest of the petitioner and on interrogation, he volunteered to produce the mobile phone and led the attesting witnesses and the police to a place near Hunsur Town Court and later, took them to a petty shop owner and after showing him said that he had given the phone to the said owner by name Mahesh, who in turn produced the mobile phone given by the petitioner and the sim card was removed and the mobile phone of Nokia Company was seized in the presence of the attesting witnesses. The mangalya chain of the deceased was also recovered at the instance of the accused. The material produced reveals the said mobile phone and the mangalya chain belong to the deceased. 9. So far as the motive is concerned, in the complaint it has been stated that on 16-2-2009 the petitioner has threatened the deceased asking her to be his kept Mistress, failing which he will finish and throw the dead body in Cauvery River. It is within three days thereafter that the incident has happened. Further, the statement of C.W. 6 also reveals the circumstance about the deceased having last seen with the petitioner. So considering the strong motive that has been alleged in the complaint, the homicidal death of the deceased, the circumstance about the deceased having last seen with the petitioner, the other circumstances which have been brought on record and the statements of the witnesses which reveal that the petitioner was absconding for a long time after the incident, I am of the opinion that there is prima facie material against the petitioner for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. 10. The petitioner has not made out any exceptional grounds for the grant of bail. 10. The petitioner has not made out any exceptional grounds for the grant of bail. Even otherwise, if he is granted bail, there is possibility that he may cause threat, force, coercion or influence on the witnesses. The allegation in the complaint that he had given threat to the deceased would infer that he may give threat to the witnesses also. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to the bail sought for. Hence, I answer the point in negative and proceed to pass the following: “Whether the petitioner is entitled to the bail sought for?” ORDER The petition is dismissed.