JUDGMENT 1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner today has filed a typed copy of the First Information Report. In view of the same, the office objection is taken as complied with. 2. The petitioner who is the sole accused in S.C. No.64/2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, is before this Court praying to release him on bail. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Sooramma is the wife of the petitioner. She had been given in marriage to the petitioner about ten years prior to the present occurrence, which took place on 04.03.2013. She had not begotten any children. Therefore, the accused was abusing her and had also taken her to different temples to fulfil their desire to get children. It is further alleged the accused had also suspected the fidelity of his wife. 4. Such being the position, about a week prior to the present occurrence the petitioner had left the deceased in the house of her parents situated at Megalahatti Village. The accused was visiting his in- law's house and calling on his wife. Whenever he was visiting his in-law's house he was taking the deceased along with him on the TVS Moped of CW-26 Nagesh for watering the land and was bringing her back. On 04.03.2013 at about 7.00 P.M. the petitioner came to the house of his in-law at Megalahatti Village, took his deceased wife on the TVS Moped of CW-26 - Nagesh on the ground of watering his land. Thereafter it is alleged, while he was taking the deceased on his motorcycle at about 8.30 p.m. he dashed the TVS Moped deliberately to a cement pole situated by the side of two hillocks located on Bommalinganahalli -Thalavarahalli Road, felled the deceased and TVS Moped. Thereafter, he committed her murder by assaulting her with chopper which he had brought in the TVS Motor Cycle. In the meantime, CWs 16 to 19 who are coming in an Autorickshaw saw the said occurrence. Thereafter, the petitioner in order to cause disappearance of the evidence of murder committed by him, telephoned to CW-26 from whom he had taken the TVS Motor cycle and informed him that Sooramma -his wife has sustained injuries as she had met with a motor accident. Thereafter, the petitioner in order to cause disappearance of the evidence of murder committed by him, telephoned to CW-26 from whom he had taken the TVS Motor cycle and informed him that Sooramma -his wife has sustained injuries as she had met with a motor accident. Immediately thereafter, he also took steps to remove the deceased who was seriously injured, in the Autorickshaw in which CWs 16 to 19 were coming to Molakalmuru Government Hospital. On the way CWs 26 and 28 met the accused and on instruction of the petitioner CW-26 went to collect his motor-cycle which was lying on the spot where the occurrence had taken place. Thereafter, Sooramma who had sustained injury succumbed to the same before she was taken to the hospital. Thus, the accused has committed the offence alleged against him. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends, the so called eye witnesses namely., CWs 16 to 19 have come out with the version of having witnessed the accused committing the murder on 08.04.2013 nearly about four days after the occurrence. Therefore, their statements go a long way to place reliance on them. He further contends, admittedly the accused has dashed the TVS Moped to a cement pole. On account of which the deceased has fallen down, sustained injuries to which she has succumbed. He has also informed CW-26 and one Obanna who is CW-27 stating that the deceased has sustained injuries in an accident. He has removed her in the Autorickshaw to the Hospital. This conduct of the accused would go to show the allegations that he has committed the murder cannot be believed. The petitioner is in custody since 05.03.2013. Therefore, he be released on bail. 6. The application filed by the petitioner is opposed by the State. 7. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused has committed the murder of his deceased - wife by assaulting her with chopper. According to the learned Counsel, the deceased died on account of the injury sustained in an accident. The Post Mortem has been conducted on the body of the deceased on 05.04.2013. 8. A perusal of the Post Mortem Report placed before the Court reveals the deceased has sustained cut lacerated wound, which cannot be caused in an accident. According to the learned Counsel, the deceased died on account of the injury sustained in an accident. The Post Mortem has been conducted on the body of the deceased on 05.04.2013. 8. A perusal of the Post Mortem Report placed before the Court reveals the deceased has sustained cut lacerated wound, which cannot be caused in an accident. Though the learned Counsel contended that the eye witnesses have come out with the version four days after the occurrence having regard to the injuries that have been noticed on the body of the deceased by the Medical Officer, who has conducted Autopsy, it would rule out the possibility of deceased having sustained the injuries in an accident. On the other hand, it goes to show that it must have been caused by some agency and as the accused was the only person who was with the deceased on that night, it indicates that he has caused the injuries which has resulted in the death of the deceased. Therefore, at this stage, in my view a prima facie case for the offence under Section 302 IPC is made out against the accused. In that view of the matter, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 9. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed.