Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 722 (KAR)

Uma W/o Santosh Padmannavar v. State of Karnataka

2025-07-02

VENKATESH NAIK T.

body2025
ORDER : 1. Heard Sri. Sandesh Chouta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Kirtilata Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and Sri. Srinand A. Pachhapure, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge them on bail in connection with Crime No.179 of 2024 of Malamaruthi Police Station, Belagavi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 238, 61 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in S.C. No.22 of 2025. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 09.10.2024, when the first informant (CW1 – daughter of the deceased) was in Bengaluru, she received a phone call from her brother, Akul – CW24, whereby she was informed that her father had a heart attack and thereafter, she contacted her mother (accused No.1), who confirmed the same and informed that he is no more. Hence, she came to Belagavi and attended cremation of her father. After cremation, CW1 attempted to view CCTV Footages to witness the last moments of her father. However, her mother convinced her not to see the footages and asked her to take bath first, as she had returned from crematorium. After a while, upon checking the footage, CW1 discovered that certain portions of the footage were deleted. Thus, she made an enquiry about the deleted footage with her brother, Sujal – CW25, and discovered the fact that his mother – accused No.1 had instructed to delete the footages. Hence, CW1 questioned her mother regarding the reason for deleting the CCTV footage and her mother informed her that her brother, Sujal, might have deleted the footage by mistake. However, upon repeated questioning, her mother informed her that CCTV footages were deliberately erased to prevent the trouble from relatives. CW1 further enquired with her brother, Akul, and discovered that a night before the alleged incident, her brother, Akul, was sleeping with his father (the deceased) and his mother – accused No.1 persuaded him to sleep in a different room with his brother, Sujal, and later, his mother took Sujal's phone and locked them in the bedroom. CW1 further enquired with her brother, Akul, and discovered that a night before the alleged incident, her brother, Akul, was sleeping with his father (the deceased) and his mother – accused No.1 persuaded him to sleep in a different room with his brother, Sujal, and later, his mother took Sujal's phone and locked them in the bedroom. Thereafter, loud yelling sounds were heard from the father's room, he and his brother attempted to open the door, but it was locked. After a while, his mother opened the door, prompting them to quickly enter the room. Upon arrival, Akul noticed that his father's tongue was sticking out, and he attempted to offer some water, but his mother advised against it, stating that he should not be given water due to his intoxicated state. 4. It is further alleged in the complaint that, CW1's mother (accused No.1) was a close friend to a person named Shobitgouda (accused No.2), and the same had led to conflicts between the accused and the deceased. Further, a family member had intervened and resolved the issue. Despite the compromise, her mother tried to stay in touch with accused No.2. In the meanwhile, the deceased transferred ownership of two apartments back to his name, which had previously been registered in the name of accused No.1. Thus, she developed ill-will against the decided and hatched a plan with other accused persons to eliminate the deceased. 5. It is alleged that in view of the same, CW1 voiced her concerns with regard to her father's death to her uncle, Raju Dundappa – CW27. Thereafter, CW1's uncle examined the CCTV footage from a neighbouring residence and the CCTV footage showed that on 09.10.2024, two unidentified individuals were seen near the deceased's house. The footage revealed that they entered the deceased's house and subsequently exited with gloves in their hands. At the time of incident, Shobitgouda (accused No.2), one Smt. Nandabayi Kuriya – CW28 (household helper) and her husband Sri. Prakash Kuriya – CW29 were also present. Hence, on 15.10.2024, CW1 after her own analysis of the situation lodged the complaint against all the persons including her mother (accused No.1) alleging to have committed murder of her father. This led to registration of First Information Report and investigation. 6. Prakash Kuriya – CW29 were also present. Hence, on 15.10.2024, CW1 after her own analysis of the situation lodged the complaint against all the persons including her mother (accused No.1) alleging to have committed murder of her father. This led to registration of First Information Report and investigation. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are innocent, have not committed any offences and have been falsely implicated in this case with an oblique motive by the complainant, with intent to harass the blameless petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that CW1 was produced before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, for recording of her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS on 28.10.2024. In that statement, upon understanding the contents of the complaint, she admitted that her relatives, with an intention of grabbing the property, had pressurized her into signing a manipulated complaint. This clearly indicates that the entire case is fabricated and concocted. The complainant’s allegation regarding unusual signs of death—such as the deceased’s body being swollen and blackened—is false and baseless, made with the sole intention of falsely implicating the petitioners. The complainant’s claim that she was not allowed to view the CCTV footage and was instead instructed to take a bath first, and later, upon inquiry, her brothers and mother informed her that the footage had been deleted, is a concocted and fabricated story intended to falsely implicate the petitioners. 8. It is further contended that the allegation that, for the past six months, accused No.1 had developed a relationship with accused No.2, which led to conflicts with the deceased, and that the complainant’s uncle had advised them to avoid such conflicts but accused No.1 continued her association with Shobitgouda, is a frivolous claim made with ulterior motives. The allegation that, during the investigation, it was revealed that the petitioners had obtained Oleanz sleeping tablets and regularly administered them to accused No.1 is completely false and fabricated. It is claimed that on the date of the alleged incident, accused No.1 mixed eight sleeping tablets in Ragi Malt and gave it to the deceased, and that thereafter, accused No.1 and the other co-accused administered an insulin injection to the deceased and allegedly suffocated him with a pillow, is entirely false and frivolous. This allegation has been made solely to falsely connect and involve the petitioners in the case. 9. This allegation has been made solely to falsely connect and involve the petitioners in the case. 9. It is contended that the death of the deceased was natural, caused by a heart attack. He was immediately taken to Lakeview Hospital on 09.10.2024, where the attending doctor examined him and declared him dead. The cremation was conducted on 10.10.2024 between 12:30 p.m. and 01:00 p.m., as per customary rites, in the presence of Petitioner No.1, the complainant, her brothers Sujal and Akul, and other relatives and friends. Therefore, at the time, there were no suspicions surrounding the cause of death. 10. It is contended that the Investigating Officer, upon examining the body, conducted an inquest panchnama and arranged for a postmortem. The postmortem report clearly records that there were no external or internal injuries on the body. The medical opinion unequivocally attributes the cause of death to a heart attack. Thus, it is evident that the investigation has been manipulated to falsely implicate the petitioners. 11. It is also contended that the CCTV footage does not provide any clear or conclusive evidence. In the absence of any injuries on the deceased’s body and with the final medical opinion confirming death due to natural causes, no case is made out against the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 12. It is contended that the deceased was financially well-established and had acquired considerable immovable properties. It appears that with an intention of grabbing the said properties, certain relatives have orchestrated the present false case against the petitioners. As such, the entire case lacks substance and the investigation is tainted with mala fide intent. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. 13. It is contended that a key prosecution witness has turned hostile and is not supporting the earlier statements attributed to her. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhawan , (2003) 7 SCC 291 , wherein, at paragraph 10, it was held: “The Court has at least to be aware that prima facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times has no regard for truth. His evidence has to be read and considered as a whole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached to the same. His evidence has to be read and considered as a whole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached to the same. The court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness and, normally, it should look for corroboration to his evidence.” In Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 , the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 87 observed: “87. If a witness is treated as ‘hostile’ and is cross-examined, his evidence cannot be written off altogether but must be considered with due care and circumspection. That part of the testimony which is creditworthy must be considered and acted upon. It is for the Judge, as a matter of prudence, to consider the extent of evidence which is creditworthy for the purpose of proof of the case.” 14. It is contended that accused No.1 is a woman and there is no cogent or positive evidence on record to suggest homicidal death. Petitioner No.2 is a nurse employed at Arihant Hospital and no material has been placed on record to establish her involvement. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are servants working at the residence of the deceased; they are daily-wage earners (coolies) with no motive whatsoever. If not granted bail, they would suffer immense hardship and irreparable loss. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners further places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee , (2010) 14 SCC 496 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the guiding principles for consideration of bail applications. At paragraph 9, it was observed that the following factors must be considered: i. Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; ii. Nature and gravity of the accusation; iii. Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; iv. Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; v. Character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; vi. Likelihood of the offence being repeated; vii. Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and viii. Danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 16. It is contended that, in the present case, the criteria for grant of regular bail as laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar (supra) are fully satisfied. Likelihood of the offence being repeated; vii. Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and viii. Danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 16. It is contended that, in the present case, the criteria for grant of regular bail as laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar (supra) are fully satisfied. There exists no prima facie evidence to suggest that the petitioners committed the alleged offence. Further, there is no material on record to establish any concrete or direct involvement of the petitioners. There is also no reasonable apprehension that the petitioners would influence any witness. In fact, the complainant herself has turned hostile, thus removing any apprehension of tampering. 17. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is an unexplained and inordinate delay of five days in lodging the complaint, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case and investigation. Such delay creates a reasonable inference of fabrication and suggests that the complaint was an afterthought, made with an intention to falsely implicate and harass the petitioners. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are permanent residents and possess both movable and immovable properties. It is assured that, if released on bail, the petitioners shall not misuse the liberty granted to them and will abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. On these grounds, learned counsel respectfully prays that this Court be pleased to allow the present petition and grant bail to the petitioners. 19. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent – State contended that the minor children of accused No.1 have clearly stated in their statements under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 about the role played by accused No.1, so also about the involvement of other accused Shobhitgouda. The material witnesses are CWs.24, 25, 28, 29 and 32, they have clearly stated in their statement regarding the offence committed by accused persons. The postmortem report, and FSL report and final opinion clearly discloses the cause of death of deceased. The CDR recovered by Investigation Officer clearly discloses that all the accused were in contact during the relevant point of time. 20. The postmortem report, and FSL report and final opinion clearly discloses the cause of death of deceased. The CDR recovered by Investigation Officer clearly discloses that all the accused were in contact during the relevant point of time. 20. It is further contended by the learned HCGP that the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence, such as, last seen theory, wherein it clearly discloses that the accused were seen entering into the house and going out of the house after commission of offence. It is further contended that, accused No.4 has supplied the medicines which is dangerous to health, knowing fully well about the medicines he has supplied the medicines to accused No.1. Hence, on these grounds, learned HCGP prayed to reject the petition. 21. Perused the material available on record. The following point that would arise for Court’s consideration as follows: “Whether the petitioners are entitled for bail as sought for?” 22. Having perused the complaint and charge sheet materials, it can be said that, this case rests on circumstantial evidence. Burden is on the prosecution to prove every link in the chain of circumstances. 23. In this case, accused No.1 is none other than the wife of the deceased. The de facto complainant (CW1) is none other than the daughter of the deceased and accused No.1. As per the case of prosecution, the motive behind the commission of murder of the deceased is that, accused No.1 was a close friend of accused No.2 and the same had led to conflicts between accused No.1 and the deceased. In this regard, the family members of deceased had advised her, but inspite of specific advice given to her, she did not leave the friendship of accused No.2. Thus, her husband – deceased transferred ownership of two apartments back to his name, which had previously been registered in the name of accused No.1. Thus, accused No.1 developed ill-will with the deceased and she decided to eliminate her husband – deceased, and thereby she hatched a plan with other accused persons. Thus, they administered 8 oleanz sleeping tablets in ragi malt to the deceased. Thereafter, petitioners – accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 collectively administered an insulin injection to the deceased. In fact, the deceased was not a diabetic. 24. Thus, they administered 8 oleanz sleeping tablets in ragi malt to the deceased. Thereafter, petitioners – accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 collectively administered an insulin injection to the deceased. In fact, the deceased was not a diabetic. 24. As per the charge sheet materials, accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 have suffocated the deceased with a pillow, and committed murder, and projected it, as the death of deceased was natural, due to heart attack. 25. In this regard, CW1 – the daughter of accused No.1 and the deceased, suspected her mother, thus lodged the complaint, based on the information from her brothers CW24 and CW25, who were present at the time of commission of offence at home. 26. I have perused the statement of CW24, recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate. The statement reveals that, a night before the alleged incident, he was sleeping with his father – deceased and his mother – accused No.1, persuaded him to sleep in a different room with the brother Sujal (CW25) and later his mother took Sujal’s phone and locked them inside the room. Thereafter, loud yelling sounds were heard from the father’s room. Though he and his brother attempted to open the door, it was locked. As soon as his mother entered the room, she was sweating and he saw his father, with his tongue sticking out, at that time, accused No.2 was there. He further stated that on the day of cremation of his father, all CCTV footages were deleted at the instruction of accused No.1. Therefore, CW24 has stated against accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. CW25 another son of accused No.1 has also stated against the role of accused persons. It shows that the children of accused No.1 and deceased have stated before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. hold significant value in criminal proceedings as they can be used to corroborate or contradict the witness testimony in Court. The Magistrate recording the statement must ensure it is made voluntary and without coercion. 27. In the instant case, the Investigating Officer submitted CDRs. and CCTV footages. In criminal cases, the evidentiary value of Call Detail Records are generally considered admissible in evidence, as corroborative evidence. CDRs. can be crucial in establishing communication patterns, location data and potential links between the accused persons involved in the case. 28. 27. In the instant case, the Investigating Officer submitted CDRs. and CCTV footages. In criminal cases, the evidentiary value of Call Detail Records are generally considered admissible in evidence, as corroborative evidence. CDRs. can be crucial in establishing communication patterns, location data and potential links between the accused persons involved in the case. 28. In the instant case, the Investigating Officer has recorded voluntary statement of accused No.1 and seized the pillow and blanket, which were used for commission of offence. 29. So far as accused Nos.4 and 5 are concerned, they injected an insulin injection which was not prescribed for the deceased. Thus it was against medical jurisprudence. It shows that accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 conspired together and caused the death of the deceased. Whether the cause of death was heart attack i.e., natural death or homicidal death, it requires a full fledged trial. At this juncture, only prima facie case has to be seen and while deciding bail application, this Court cannot scan entire prosecution papers and hold a mini trial. At this juncture, it reveals that, the petitioners are involved in the alleged offences. 30. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations against the petitioners, the seriousness of the offence, the severity of the potential punishment, the likelihood of the petitioners absconding if granted bail, and the petitioners’ character, past conduct, and risk of tampering with prosecution witnesses, the petitioners shall not be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER : Criminal petition is hereby rejected. In view of disposal of the petition, IA No.1/2025 filed by the learned counsel Shri Srinand A. Pachhapure, stands disposal off.