Dismissed

Chandhibai W/O Premasingh Jadhav v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2013CRL.P/15096/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, accused in a murder case involving setting her in-laws to fire, challenged the lower court's rejection. The court held that the dying declaration singly implicated the petitioner and was sufficient to deny bail.

What did the court decide?

The bail petition was rejected, and the petitioner was not granted enlargement on bail.

Chandhibai W/O Premasingh Jadhav Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15096/2013

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

Chandhibai W/o Premasing Jadhav, Age: 60 Years, Occ: Nil, R/o: Hanchanal Tanda No.1, Taluk and District Bijapur. … PETITIONER (By Shri. Shivanand.V.Pattanshetti, Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

The State of Karnataka Represented by Additional State Public Prosecutor, Circuit Bench, Gulbarga. (Through Bijapur Rurla Police Station.)

¶11

… RESPONDENT

¶12

(By Shri Sanjay.A.Patil, Additional State Public Prosecutor)

¶13

¶14

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this court to grant the regular bail to the petitioner in C.C.No.2367/2012 (Bijapur Rural Police Station, Crime NO.183/2012) pending on the file of the JMFC., Court-II at Bijapur, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 302, 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶15

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

¶18

On the basis of a complaint of one Sunita alleging that the present petitioner who is her mother-in-law along with her husband and father-in-law had together poured kerosene on the complainant and set her on fire as there was complaint about her cooking and her behavior. On 1.8.2012, as a result of which she had several burn injuries she was hospitalized but died on the next day. Before her death she had made a dying declaration and such a dying declaration was recorded twice to

¶19

¶20

the same effect that all the three accused had together confined her in a room and set her ablaze. The case having been registered against the petitioner and her husband as well as her son. The petitioner and her husband had approached the court below seeking enlargement on bail. However having regard to the dying declaration and the manner in which the deceased had met her death the court below has rejected the bail petition. It is in this background that the present petition is filed.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶22

that admittedly the deceased had suffered from serious burn injuries especially to her face and her hands. She was therefore not in a position to make any statement before her death and the claim that there was a dying declaration is hence highly doubtful. Her hands were also burnt in that there were 90% burn injuries and deep burn injuries accordingly the fact that she has affixed her thumb impression is also seriously doubtful. Hence, on the mere claim that there was a dying declaration it

¶23

¶24

cannot be said that the petitioner ought to be remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner is 60 years old and he suffering from Asthma the court below has disbelieved her medical condition and as also held that the dying declaration was clinching evidence to certainly hold the present petitioner guilty, which is unjust as it forecloses the defence available to the petitioner. In any event for the purposes of seeking bail it is sufficient that there is a serious doubt cast on the genuineness of dying declaration and having regard to the fact that the dying declaration is only to the effect that all the three accused had together set her ablaze. It does not indicate that the petitioner and her husband were strong enough to hold her down while her husband set her on fire and it would be difficult for the petitioner and her husband to continue to hold her, when there were 90% burn injuries, which would indicate that the death was in a manner which is not as disclosed by the prosecution. Therefore seeks enlargement on bail.

¶25

¶26

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would

¶27

point out that the dying declaration being characterized as doubtful is unfair and unjust. The presumption that the deceased was unable to speak and could not have made any statement is again wishful thinking of the petitioner. The dying declaration is categorical in that it implicates the petitioner. The fact that she is 60 years or suffers from any ailment is immaterial in considering her case for bail. Even if she is ill there is provision to provide medical treatment in jail. Therefore it would not be a ground. In the circumstances of the case it would not be just to grant bail to the present petitioner who is certainly involved in the commission of the offence, whereby the deceased has met a gruesome death and would oppose the petition on that note.

¶28

Given the circumstances of the case, the dying declaration would have to be given importance, unless it creates serious doubt in the mind of the court. Therefore in the present

¶29

¶30

case on hand the gravity of the dying declaration and the plain statement that the petitioner was one of the persons who held her and set her ablaze is sufficient to implicate her on the face of it.

¶31

Therefore there is no case made out for enlargement on bail notwithstanding the several pleas put-forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner appealing to the sympathy of this court. Accordingly no case is made out. The bail petition is rejected.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

msr

Chandhibai W/O Premasingh Jadhav v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandhibai W/O Premasingh Jadhav v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Jafar S/O Shaikh Rukmuddin and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka through Excise P.S.

Mousin Ahmed S/O Mahimoddo Ali Jamadar and Ors. Vs the State through Grameen P.S., Gulbarga

Dattu @ Dattatraya S/O Shantappa Navale Vs the State of Karnataka through Ashok Nagar Ps

Vijay S/O Ramarao Tarage Vs the State of Karnataka

Adeppa S/O Bassappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Anila Pavade S/O Late Malleshappa Vs Smt. Bhagya Jyothi Alleged to Be the W/O Anila Pav