Partly allowed

Smt. Jayalakshmamma v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC2 Jan 2017CRL.P/5852/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for murder, the High Court granted bail to Petitioner No.2 citing the post-mortem report's lack of chest injuries contrary to allegations, while rejecting bail for Petitioner No.1 due to established eyewitness evidence.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for Petitioner No.2 on self-bond with one property surety and conditions regarding tampering, court attendance, and jurisdiction.

Smt. Jayalakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF JANUARY 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5852 of 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Smt. Jayalakshmamma, Wife of Late Ashwathappa, Aged about 47 years, Residing at Kadirenahalli Village, Masthi Hobli,

¶9

Malur Talu and Kolar District – 563 130.

¶10

Sri. Muniraju, Son of Venkatagiriyappa, Aged about 40 years, Agriculturist, Residing at Kadirenahalli Village, Masthi Hobli, Malur Taluk and Kolar District PIN 563 130.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(By Shri Nanjunda Gowda M.R., Advocate)

¶13

¶14

AND:

¶15

State of Karnataka by Masthi Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(By Shri S. Vishwamurthy, Government Pleader )

¶18

¶19

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 439 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.48/2016 of Masti Police Station, Kolar, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC.

¶20

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶23

2. It is alleged that the Petitioner No.1 had fallen out with

¶24

her husband who was known to be a habitual criminal. It was

¶25

also the case of the prosecution that certain properties had been

¶26

purchased in the joint names of the petitioner and the deceased husband of the first petitioner and there was a constant demand

¶27

¶28

by her that the property should be transferred in her name and on account of this, there were frequent quarrels. On the date of the incident, according to the prosecution, the deceased was attacked by the Petitioner No.1 with a club and she had hit him on the back of his head with a club, while Petitioner No.2 had attacked him with a stone and hit him with a stone on his chest and as a result of which he had fallen unconscious. He was then moved to the hospital by the villagers who had arrived there. It is thereafter that he had succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.

¶29

According to the Post-mortem report, the death of the deceased was caused on account of the head injury. It is in this background that the petitioners who were proceeded against are in custody and had sought bail. The court below has rejected their bail application on the ground that there are two eyewitnesses to the incident and it is established that the death of the deceased was on account of the injuries caused to him. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court.

¶30

¶31

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the

¶32

petitioners that the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses cannot be readily accepted. In that, it is on record that the death was caused at best on account of the head injury which if attributed to Petitioner No.1, would not result in making out a prima facie case against Petitioner No.2 who is said to have assaulted the deceased with a stone on his chest. When the post-mortem report does not disclose any such injury or even an aberration on the chest region of the deceased, to proceed on the presumption that petitioner No.2 had caused any such injury which had resulted in his death, cannot be readily assumed. Therefore, he seeks that the said circumstance should be taken into consideration in considering the bail application of Petitioner No.2, which the Trial Court has failed to do.

¶33

Though the learned Government Pleader would seek to raise serious objection to consider the case of the petitioner, it is found that the post-mortem report clearly discloses that the death has been caused on account of the injury caused to the

¶34

¶35

head of the deceased and there was no indication of any injury caused to the chest of the deceased. In which event, the specific allegation against Petitioner No.2 of having caused any such injury would be subject to the trial and proof thereof. Consequently, the said petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail.

¶36

Hence, the petition insofar as Accused No.1 – Petitioner No.1 is rejected. The petition of Accused No.2 – Petitioner No.2 is allowed. The petitioner No.2 shall be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶37

(i) The second petitioner shall execute a self bond for a

¶38

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the court below.

¶39

(ii) The second petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses in any

¶40

manner.

¶41

¶42

(iii) The second petitioner shall attend the court on all

¶43

dates of hearing and shall co-operate with the Investigating Authority.

¶44

(iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court below

¶45

without prior permission.

¶46

Sd/- JUDGE

¶47

Smt. Jayalakshmamma v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jayalakshmamma v. State of Karnataka by

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

Sri Venkatashankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Johann Tuchler Vs Superintendent of Customs

Ambarish S Kapadia Vs State by CBI

Mr. Irfan Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Imbu Shankar Chits Private Limited Vs Vinay Raman

Sri Harish Kanaginhal Vs State of Karnataka