Allowed

Mahadevi Bhovi W/O. Subhas v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2021CRL.P/100272/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted regular bail to the accused woman in a murder investigation, noting significant delays in recording witness statements and the fact that she had been in custody for over a year.

What did the court decide?

Release of the petitioner on bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties, prohibition from interfering with witnesses, and a mandate to appear for trial.

Mahadevi Bhovi W/O. Subhas Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100272/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MAHADEVI BHOVI W/O. SUBHAS, AGE-36 YEARS, OCC-COOLIE, R/O. AMARAVATI-587 118, TQ-HUNAGUND, DIST-BAGALKOT.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HUNGUND POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 001.

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY MS.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. BY THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 AND PRAYED TO GRANT HER REGULAR BAIL IN THE CRIME NO.140/2019 OF HUNGUND POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC PENDING

¶15

¶16

BEFORE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT IN SESSIONS CASE NO.48/2020.

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner/accused No.2 filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting regular bail in Crime No.140/2019 registered by Hungunda Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶20

It is the case of prosecution that on the complaint filed by one-Smt Kantamma Sangappa Bhovi, the mother of deceasedSubhash Sangappa Bhovi, on 22.11.2019 alleging that his son the deceased-Subhash Bhovi married to accused No.2 about 13 years back having 3 children and on 30.04.2019 the accused No.2 and the deceased were slept along with their children in a room of their house and complainant herself slept on the floor of her house. On the next morning her son found dead and she has suspected his death by looking to abrasion injury over the neck. She has filed complaint and a UDR No.9/2019 came to be filed under Section 174(C) of Cr.P.C. Subseuqnetly, the dead body was taken to the

¶21

¶22

postmortem examination and the viscera were sent to the FSL for chemical analysis and later, it is revealed that this petitioner/accused No.2 having intimacy with the accused No.1, accused No.2 is a paramour, has committed murder of the deceased by throttling his neck. After receipt of the postmortem examination report, a complaint came to be lodged on 22.11.2019. Subsequently, accused No.2 was arrested on 23.11.2019. Charge sheet came to be filed against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner/accused No.2 approached the Sessions Court for granting bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, she is before this Court.

¶23

The learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.2 has contended that petitioner No.2 is innocent of the offences alleged. She has been falsely implicated in this case. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, i.e., more than 6 months. The statements of the circumstantial witnesses were recorded only after arresting the petitioner. Even the alleged eyewitnesses the children also gave statements only after arresting the petitioner. But not prior to the extra judicial confession which was made by the

¶24

¶25

complaint which was recorded on 23.11.2019. Thereafter, at this stage, there is no prima-facie material to prove the guilt of the accused No.2. Petitioner is a woman; she is in judicial custody for more than 1 year 3 months. She is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶26

Per Contra , the learned HCGP objected the bail petition and contended that the motive for the alleged offence is illicit intimacy between the accused Nos.1 and 2. The postmortem report of the deceased reveals, which was a homicidal death. The accused No.2 and deceased were slept in a room and deceased found in the house last scene together. The children CWs.13 and 14 were gave statements as they are the eyewitnesses; they have seen accused Nos.1 and 2 at 11.30 p.m. on the intervening night of 30.04.2019 to 01.05.2019. The extra judicial confession made by the CW-11Vinod Badiger also shows the accused have committed the murder of deceased. There is prima-facie material placed to show the involvement of this petitioner/accused No.2 in the case. Therefore, she prayed for rejecting the bail petition.

¶27

¶28

Upon hearing the arguments on both sides and on perusal of the records, admittedly the deceased and accused were found staying in one house on 30.04.2019, when on the next day, Subhash Bhavi found dead and the mother suspected the death of her son. Since there was some injuries on the neck subsequently body was subjected to the postmortem examination, where some injuries were there and after receipt of the histopathology report, the Doctors gave the opinion as death was due to compression over the neck, which amounts to a homicidal death. However, the postmortem report is received by the Investigating Officer on 22.11.2010. The material placed on record by the Investigating Officer, which shows the statements of the children CWs.13 and 14 were recorded only after 23.11.2019 i.e., after 6 months of the incident. Even the accused said to have made extra judicial confession before the CW-11-Vinod Badiger, in turn, who said to have informed the complainant. But his statement also recorded by the police only after 23.11.2019 by more than 6 months delay. Inspite of suspecting the death by the complainant/mother the police not chosen to record the statements up to lapse of 6 months. All these statements were recorded after the lapse of 6 months. The

¶29

¶30

extra judicial confession made before the CW-11 is weak piece of evidence shall have to be proved before the Court after completion of the trial. By looking to the delay in recording the statements of the eyewitnesses and extra judicial confession made before the CW11, petitioner/accused No.2 being the woman. She is in judicial custody for 1 year 3 months. By looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, by imposing certain conditions the bail is granted, no prejudice would cause to the prosecution case. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The criminal petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.140/2019 of Hungunda Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC pending in Sessions Case No.48/2020 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, subject to the following conditions:

¶33

i. The petitioner/accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `2,00,000/- (Rupees

¶34

¶35

two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶36

ii. The petitioner/accused No.2 shall not hamper/tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶37

iii. The petitioner/accused No.2 shall not indulge in similar offences.

¶38

iv. The petitioner/accused shall take the trial without causing any delay.

¶39

CKK

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

Mahadevi Bhovi W/O. Subhas v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadevi Bhovi W/O. Subhas v. 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

State of Karnataka Vs Harish S/O. Subray Hegde

Chandrappa Rayappa Itagi Vs the State by Marihal of Police

Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Thippeswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shubham S/O Raju Bhatkande Vs State of Karnataka