Allowed

Sitharam v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2021CRL.P/138/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the accused in a murder case involving asphyxia by smothering. The court noted the case was based on circumstantial evidence and the accused was in custody for over five months with children living in the foundation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner accused released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties and conditions against similar offences, witness tampering, and leaving jurisdiction.

Sitharam Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^th DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.138 of 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SITHARAM S/O LAKSHMAN RATHOD AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT BANDE HOSUR VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST-562149

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI THAMMI REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAGALUR POLICE STATION BANGALORE REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.No.121/2020 REGISTERED BY BAGALURU POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting bail in Crime No.121/2020 registered by the Bagaluru Police for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that the Bagaluru Police registered a case against the accused on 11.10.2020 and arrested the petitioner on 12.10.2020. On 28.02.2020, the brother of the deceased Sri Laxman came and lodged the complaint to the Police alleging that his sister Sunitha was married to the accused and she is having two children. She was found dead in the house of the accused and there was frequent quarrel between the husband and the wife. Therefore, he suspected that the accused might have caused the death of his sister. Hence, prayed to take action. The Police investigated in to the matter and registered the case in UDR No.6/2020. During the enquiry under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., Police received the Post Mortem Report on 06.10.2020 reporting that the cause of death was due to

¶21

¶22

asphyxia as a result of smothering. Based on the Post Mortem Report, the Police registered a suo motu case against the petitioner, arrested and remanded him to judicial custody. The petitioner approached the Sessions Judge for bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the offence and he has been falsely implicated. The deceased was suffering from Epilepsy disease and she might have died in the midnight due to Epilepsy. There is a delay of eight months in registering the case. The petitioner is having two young children and he is in custody since 12.10.2020 i.e. nearly for five months. The charge sheet has already been filed. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this court. Hence, he prayed for bail.

¶24

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the bail petition and contended that the petitioner has committed the murder of his wife. There were frequent

¶25

¶26

quarrels between himself and his wife in respect of menstrual issue. The accused insisted the deceased to take treatment but she refused and that was the motive for committing the murder of the deceased. The cause of death is clearly mentioned by the Doctor that it is due Asphyxia as a result of smothering. The accused has used the pillow for committing the murder. There were injuries on the face of the deceased which reveals that the accused committed the murder his wife. Though there is delay in registering the case, but the Police was waiting for the Post-Mortem Report. Therefore, it cannot be considered as the delay. Hence, she prayed for rejecting the bail petition.

¶27

Upon considering the arguments and on perusal of the documents, admittedly, the death has occurred in the house of the accused on 28.02.2020 and the brother of the deceased has lodged the complaint to the Police on the same day but the Police have not registered the case against the accused immediately, but were waiting to receive the Post Mortem Report and received it on 06.10.2020. Later, suo

¶28

¶29

motu case has been registered by the Police. The Post Mortem Report reveals that the death was due to Asphyxia as a result of smothering and there were injuries found on the face of the deceased as per the inquest report and UDR was registered by the Police at the initial stage. There are two children born to the deceased and the accused, but there is no material to show that the Investigating Officer has recorded any statement of these children and the case of the prosecution is entirely based upon the circumstantial evidence and the accused is required to explain the death of the deceased as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act as the death was a homicidal death. The investigation is already completed and the charge sheet was filed long back. The accused is in custody for more than five months. He has to look after his two young children and they are literally on the road as the petitioner is in judicial custody. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner-accused is granted bail by imposing certain stringent conditions, the case of the prosecution would not be prejudiced. Hence, the following:

¶30

¶31

Order

¶32

Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶33

The Committal Court is directed to release the

¶34

petitioner-accused on bail in Crime No.121/2020 of Bagaluru Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-

¶35

i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Committal Court.

¶36

ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences.

¶37

iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶38

iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Sitharam v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitharam 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

Meenakshi Vs State of Karnataka

S M Manjunath Vs State by Mandi P S

Ivan Kambonge Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Raju C C Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. H. Puttahanumaiah @ Praveen Vs State of Karnataka

Sachin Rathod Vs the State of Karnataka