RAMESH.K Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, and perused the records.

(2.) The prosecution has filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The petitioner is accused of killing his wife, the deceased Kalpana by smothering her with a bed sheet. It is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner and the deceased, though married for about ten years, had no children and that they were frequently quarrelling. The frequent quarrel between the deceased and the petitioner was because the petitioner suspected the fidelity of the deceased. The couple, the petitioner and the deceased, were working in a garment factory and on the eventful day viz., 4.10.2018, the deceased returned home late and there were exchange of words between the couple as heard by the neighbour. The mother of the deceased, who lived in the vicinity of the daughter's residence, called on her daughter. She found the door open and when she entered the premises, she found her daughter's dead body with certain facial injuries and ligature mark on the neck. The petitioner's bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is rejected by the Sessions Court by its order dated 20.08.2019.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence, and the petitioner is accused of being culpable only because of certain circumstances viz., the neighbours hearing exchange of words between the petitioner and the deceased late in the evening of 4.10.2018 and the doctor's opinion in the postmortem report that the deceased was done to death by asphyxiation. The learned counsel submits that the circumstantial evidence does not inspire confidence inasmuch as it is not even established that the two neighbours, whose statements are recorded, reside in the immediate vicinity because of discrepancy in the addresses furnished. The learned counsel submits that the accused, who was visiting Tirupathi during the relevant point of time, returned on his own and only then he was taken into custody. If the petitioner was guilty, he would not have returned to his residence to be arrested.