Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1384 (KAR)

Suman Basur v. State of Karnataka

2013-12-09

H.S.KEMPANNA

body2013
Judgment : 1. The petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.265/2013 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC, are before this Court praying for enlarging them on bail. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased-Sagar Chatri was the husband of accused No.3-Anitha. On account of some differences, quarrels were taking place between the two. Ultimately, the deceased made arrangement to have his second wife. On coming to know of the same, accused No.3 filed petition seeking for divorce. Ultimately, by mutual consent the marriage of the deceased with accused No.3 was dissolved in M.C.No.2750/2012 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore on 06.02.2013. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 2 are the brother and cousin of accused No.3. They were all living as tenants under the complainant. The deceased despite his marriage having been dissolved with accused No.3 was visiting the house of the accused and quarrelling with his divorced wife-accused No.3. Such be in the position, it is the case of the prosecution that on 12.06.2013, at about 11.30 p.m. the deceased came to the house of the accused. A quarrel ensued between him on one hand and accused on the other hand. In the said quarrel, it is alleged that these two accused stabbed the deceased with a knife and committed his murder and therefore they have committed the aforementioned offences. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends the material now placed on record does not disclose prima facie the present petitioners having committed an offence under Section 302 of IPC. According to him, on the night of the occurrence, after the deceased came to the house of the accused, he picked up quarrel with them and assaulted all of them with a knife, due to which all the three accused sustained injuries and they have been treated in the hospital the next day after their arrest. Along with petition, the wound certificates of the accused are also produced. That discloses the accused in the case have sustained injuries on their person at the relevant time on the date of occurrence. Along with petition, the wound certificates of the accused are also produced. That discloses the accused in the case have sustained injuries on their person at the relevant time on the date of occurrence. The material on record reveals that it is the deceased who had gone to the house of the accused and had picked up quarrel with them. He has abused and assaulted the accused. Thereafter, the accused have snatched knife which was in the hands of the deceased and inflicted the injuries on the deceased which has resulted in his death. Learned counsel submits having regard to these facts, the accused in exercise of the right of defence of their person have committed offence and even if assumed that they have inflicted more injury it may amount to exceeding right of private defence, hence the act of the accused does come within the purview of Section 302 of IPC. Accused No.3 has been granted bail by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. They are in custody since 13.06.2013. Therefore, they be enlarged on bail. 5. The application is opposed by the State. 6. The material on record reveals that it is the deceased despite having obtained an order of divorce with accused No.3 by mutual consent had gone to the house of the accused on the date of occurrence at 11.30 p.m. He has picked up quarrel with them, more particularly, with accused No.3 who was his divorced wife. The material on record also reveals that the knife with which he has been stabbed was with him. After he inflicted the injury on the three accused, they have snatched the knife and have inflicted the injury on the deceased on account of which he has succumbed to the same. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that there are in all about 32 injuries on the body of the deceased. That indicates the accused have exceeded their right of private defence, by which it cannot be said their act would fall within the purview of Section 302 of IPC. 8. Therefore, in view of these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that there is no justification to decline the request of these petitioners to enlarge them on bail. 9. 8. Therefore, in view of these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that there is no justification to decline the request of these petitioners to enlarge them on bail. 9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1) The petition is allowed; 2) The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge subject to the following conditions:- i) They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses; ii) They shall attend the court on all the date of hearing.