Looking into the allegations made in the complaint, so far as assault on the deceased is concerned, there is an averment that the petitioner assaulted the deceased on her right cheek/neck. It is no doubt true that in the complaint, there is no mention that the petitioner assaulted the deceased with a stone. But complaint is not an encyclopedia. Looking to the statement of eyewitness Smt. Sumithra W/o Sanadi, she has clearly stated in her statement that the present petitioner assaulted the deceased with a stone, then she fell down unconscious.
8. I have also perused the medical opinion given by the doctor regarding the cause of death. Considering these materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that prosecution has placed prima facie material so far as the involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offence. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
In the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
(Before Budihal R.B., J.)
Balaraj S/o Hurdayaraj Chinnappa,v. The State,
Criminal Petition No. 5331 of 2017
Decided on October 9, 2017
Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 2451
Budihal R.B., J.:— This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking his release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC registered by the respondent police in Crime No. 166/2017.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in connection with construction of the house in the place of complainant, there was a dispute between the complainant, deceased and the accused. The further allegation goes to show that on 20.05.2017 around 10.00 a.m. complainant and her son requested petitioner No. 3 and her husband not to disturb them with respect to property issue. At that time, the villagers came and pacified and asked the complainant and her son to be at home and promised to settle the property issue amicably. Around 4.30 p.m, when the son of the complainant was standing in front of the complainant's house, the petitioner herein came in his motorcycle and tried to dash it against the son of the complainant. He escaped. At that time, the present petitioner from his pocket took out a knife and tried to stab complainant's son. As a result, the son of the complainant sustained bleeding injury to his left hand. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 also came and tried to assault the son of the complainant. At that point of time, when the complainant and her daughter i.e., deceased obstructed the accused No. 1, he assaulted the deceased on her right cheek and she fell on the road unconscious and she was shifted to the hospital in an auto rickshaw. The doctor who attended the deceased declared that she has been brought dead. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered against the petitioner and other accused persons.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No. 1 and also learned HCGP for the respondent-state.
4. Learned counsel submitted that accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have already been granted bail. He submitted that, even looking to complaint averments and also the charge sheet material, they go to show that the present petitioner assaulted the deceased on her right cheek/neck and she fell down unconscious. In this connection, learned counsel submitted referring to the opinion of the doctor in the post mortem report, that there is no prima facie case as against the present petitioner that he is the main cause for the death of the deceased. He submitted that as the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed, he may be granted bail by imposing reasonable conditions.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP submitted that looking into the complaint averments and also the statement of CW-10-eye witness to the incident, wherein the eyewitness Smt. Sumithra clearly stated in her statement that the petitioner tried to assault the son of the complainant. The deceased came in the middle for his rescue. At that time, the petitioner assaulted on her with a stone. Hence, he made the submission that in view of the statement of the eyewitness and the medical opinion, there is aprima facie case as against the petitioner. Hence, he submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the entire charge sheet material produced in the case.
7. Looking into the allegations made in the complaint, so far as assault on the deceased is concerned, there is an averment that the petitioner assaulted the deceased on her right cheek/neck. It is no doubt true that in the complaint, there is no mention that the petitioner assaulted the deceased with a stone. But complaint is not an encyclopedia. Looking to the statement of eyewitness Smt. Sumithra W/o Sanadi, she has clearly stated in her statement that the present petitioner assaulted the deceased with a stone, then she fell down unconscious.
8. I have also perused the medical opinion given by the doctor regarding the cause of death. Considering these materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that prosecution has placed prima facie material so far as the involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offence. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
10. However, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to move for bail after committal of case before the Sessions Court. If the petitioner so desires, he can apply and the court shall dispose of the same in accordance with law.
No comments:
Post a Comment