BHAGYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in the event of her arrest pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No. 41/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 302, 34 of IPC and Sections 75, 85 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the complainant's son who is stated to have mental disability to the extent of 90% was entrusted to the care of Manovikasa Kendra as the complainant was finding it difficult to look after his son. It is stated that the child has been admitted to the said institution about 5 years prior to the incident. It is further stated that during March, 2020 the complainant had gone to see his son and had paid fees and did not visit till the month of May, 2020. It is further stated that on 19.05.2020, petitioner called the complainant and informed that his son was not keeping well and that the child had sustained injuries in a fall. The complainant visited and noticed that there were some injuries and stated that he would take the child on the next day. On 20.05.2020, petitioner informed the complainant that the child was admitted to St. Johns Hospital and she had asked the complainant to come to the hospital. In the hospital, it is stated that the child had revealed to the complainant that he was beaten with club by the cook and petitioner. It is further stated that the deceased was discharged from St. Johns Hospital on 22.05.2020 and taken by the complainant and subsequently, he is stated to have died on 30.05.2020.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there are no previous complaints as regards the petitioner who is running the institution and that the postmortem report does not express any final opinion and final opinion is still awaited. It is submitted that the question as to whether the injury is caused by the beatings of petitioner and cook is a matter to be established during trial. Alternatively, it is submitted that at the most it is a negligent act on behalf of the petitioner but there cannot be any intention attributed as regards the offence punishable under Section 302 as against the petitioner.