Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1392 (KAR)

Shanthamma v. State of Karnataka

2022-10-20

RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

body2022
JUDGMENT Rajendra Badamikar, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No. 75/2022 (C.C. No. 8541/2022) of Kora Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC Court, Tumkur Dist. Tumkur. 2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the complainant is the wife of the deceased Govindaraju, while petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased, while petitioner No. 3 is the brother and petitioner No. 4 is the sister of the deceased. It is further alleged that accused No. 4 could not become pregnant inspite of married 2 years earlier and after marriage the complainant became pregnant within two months. As such it is alleged that all along the petitioners used to pester the deceased to get the pregnancy of his wife terminated as accused No. 4 did not became pregnant inspite of two years of marriage. In this regard the deceased used to share his feelings before his wife and regular disputes used to take place. Considering these aspects, the complainant has taken shelter in her parental house. The deceased used to visit his in-laws house regularly and he used to share his feelings that whenever he returns, they used to pester for the same ground and they used to say not to come to village without getting the pregnancy terminated. Hence, he was upset in this regard and later on started to stay in his in-laws house. It is also alleged that in-between, he was assaulted by the petitioners and he was shifted to his in-laws house. It is alleged that on 19.05.2022 the complainant visited the village and at 8.30 p.m. galata was going on between the petitioners and the deceased-Govindaraju and the deceased used to raise his voice on the ground that all along the petitioners are insisted him to get pregnancy of his wife terminated and by 9.00 p.m. police came there and directed them to get there matter resolved in the Kora police station. It is further alleged that then suddenly deceased-Govindaraju went inside a room and locked it from inside. Then he poured petrol on himself and lit, as a result, he sustained grievous burn injuries. It is further alleged that then suddenly deceased-Govindaraju went inside a room and locked it from inside. Then he poured petrol on himself and lit, as a result, he sustained grievous burn injuries. When the police officials have tried to open the window, they also suffered burn injuries and later on the injured was shifted to hospital wherein he succumbed without responding to the treatment. As such the complainant having got knowledge, has lodged a complaint in this regard against the present petitioners. 3. The petitioner approached the learned sessions judge and learned sessions judge has rejected the bail petition. As such the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the complainant is not an eye witness to the alleged incident and Cws.8, 21 and 22 are the only eye witnesses and their statement disclose that after galata in the presence of the police, the deceased went inside the room and committed suicide by lighting himself after pouring petrol. He would also contend that the petitioners are the parents, brother and sister and they had no intention to drive the deceased and they have already suffered because of the death of the Govindaraju. It is further submitted that investigation is concluded and statement of witnesses under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is also recorded. Looking to these facts and circumstances, he would assert that the presence of the petitioners in the custody is no more required as they are in custody since 21.05.2022. He would also undertake to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. As such he would seek for admitting the petitioners on regular bail subject to any conditions as deem fit by this Court. 6. Per contra learned HCGP would seriously oppose the bail petition contending that all along the petitioners have tortured the deceased to get pregnancy of his wife terminated and in this regard he was all along being assaulted and humiliated. 6. Per contra learned HCGP would seriously oppose the bail petition contending that all along the petitioners have tortured the deceased to get pregnancy of his wife terminated and in this regard he was all along being assaulted and humiliated. It is further asserted that Cws.8, 21 and 22 are the independent witnesses and their evidence also disclose as to under what trauma the deceased underwent because of the act of the present petitioners and hence, he would contend that till examination of the material witness the bail petition does not require to be considered as there is every possibility of tampering the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he would seek for rejection of the bail petition. 7. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that the petitioner No. 1 is the mother, while petitioner No. 4 is the sister of the deceased. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the father and brother of the deceased. The allegations further disclose that the petitioner No. 4 was married about 2 years back itself. But she could not became pregnant. But within two months of the marriage, the complainant has became pregnant. All along it is alleged that petitioners used to pester the deceased to get the pregnancy of his wife terminated on the ground that petitioner No. 4 could not become pregnant. The allegation further disclose that in this regard there were regular disputes used to take place and the deceased was against the termination of the pregnancy of his wife. The allegations further establish that he was also man-handled in this regard, as a result complainant was taking shelter in her parental house and for few days the deceased was also taking shelter there itself. 8. The allegations further establish that on 19.05.2022 at 8.30 p.m. again there was galata between the deceased and petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 regarding termination of pregnancy of his wife and at 9.00 p.m. the police came there and pacified the dispute asserting that they could resolve their dispute in Kora police station next day. 9. It is evident from the statement of Cws.8, 21 and 22 that the deceased Govindaraju was raising his voice on the ground that all along the petitioners are pestering him for termination of pregnancy of his wife and ill-treating him in this regard. 9. It is evident from the statement of Cws.8, 21 and 22 that the deceased Govindaraju was raising his voice on the ground that all along the petitioners are pestering him for termination of pregnancy of his wife and ill-treating him in this regard. After Cws.21 and 22 who are the police officials pacifying the dispute, suddenly the deceased went inside the room and locked from inside and committed suicide by lighting himself after pouring petrol. The allegations consistently disclose that all along the deceased was pestered for termination of the pregnancy of his wife. The statement of complainant coupled with statement of Cws.8, 21 and 22 consistently support these allegations. The mental attitude of a person is required to be considered when his family members all along insists for termination of pregnancy of his wife and that too when he is newly married. Looking to these aspects at this juncture, there appears to be prima-facie material. No doubt the investigation is concluded and charge sheet is submitted. However, the evidence prima-facie establish that there are material ingredients regarding abetment as regards the present petitioners. However, the allegations does disclose that petitioner No. 4 was not present at the spot when the alleged offence has taken place and allegation against her is that all along she used to pester the deceased. Further petitioner No. 1 is the mother and she lost her son. 10. Looking to these facts and circumstance, in my considered opinion petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 can be considered for granting bail but as regards petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 there bail petition does not survive for consideration. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP regarding petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Under these circumstances, the petition needs to be allowed in part and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (1) The petition is allowed in part. (2) The petitioner/Accused No. 1-Shanthamma and petitioner/Accused No. 4-Roopa are directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 75/2022 (C.C. No. 8541/2022) of Kora Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC Court, Tumkur Dist. Tumkur, on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. Tumkur, on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate/learned sessions judge, subject to the following conditions: (i) They shall not indulge in any of the criminal activities. (ii) They shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly. (iii) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court, without prior permission. (iv) They shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless they are exempted by a specific order. (v) They shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the matter. The petition filed by petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 stands rejected.