NARENDRA BABU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner along with the other accused in crime No.151/2019 of Vyalikaval Police Station is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 109 , 120B , 201 , 302 , 450 , 454 read with Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution allegation is that the accused being the husband of the deceased Vinutha had a long going family dispute with her which ultimately ripened into a matrimonial case. The present petitioner in order to get rid of his wife joined with other accused, hatched a criminal conspiracy to cause the death of Vinutha for which he offered a supari to accused Nos.2 and 3. As a result of the said conspiracy, the other accused executed their plan and caused the murder of deceased Vinutha on 20.12.2019.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments stated that the entire charge-sheet allegation goes to show that it is a story hatched by the prosecution only to harass the petitioner. The only major allegation against the accused is of conspiracy said to have been hatched by him but there are no materials placed by the prosecution to prima facie show that there is role of the petitioner in the alleged conspiracy. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire charge-sheet material may at the best rise the finger as against accused Nos.2 and 3 but not against the present petitioner. Merely because the petitioner being the husband of the deceased and he had a matrimonial dispute with his wife, the police at the instance of the complainant who is none else than the elder sister of the petitioner, have filed a false charge- sheet against him.

(3.) Per contra, learned HCGP while reiterating the contention taken up in his statement of objections submitted that there are strong materials to prove the alleged guilt against the petitioner to show that he had hatched the conspiracy to eliminate his wife. Undisputedly, there were several disputes including criminal case against the present petitioner instituted by the deceased, which also goes to show that everything was not well in their family and that the deceased was constantly being ill-treated and harassed by the petitioner. Learned HCGP further submitted that the seizure of the CC TV footage in the form of a pen-drive and a cell-phone from the possession of the petitioner also plays an important role. As such, in the instant case, since there is all the possibility of the accused tampering the prosecution witnesses, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.