DEVARAJU S/O BASAPPASHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 in SC 133/2013 on the file of the Prl.Sessions Judge, Hassan registered for the offence under Section 302, 324 R/W Section 34 I.P.C., is before this court seeking for grant of regular bail.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner and his wife accused No.2 have a daughter by name Sandhya. The deceased Dilipa had teased and taunted the daughter of the accused about 3 to 4 months prior to the date of occurrence which took place on 16.2.2013. Subsequently also the deceased had not given up the act of teasing and taunting the daughter of the accused. In that connection frequent quarrels were taking place between the accused on one hand and deceased and his mother on the other hand in Jumblur village of Sakaleshpur taluk. Such being the position, it is the case of the prosecution on 16.2.2013 at about 7.30 p.m. while the deceased Dilipa was sitting in front of his house along with his mother Nagamma -CW1, the accused came to the said place armed with handle of spade and after abusing the deceased as to why he is indulging in teasing and taunting their daughter, assaulted the deceased on his head, body and hands saying that he would be killed. Seeing the said assault CWs 2, 3 and 4 came to pacify the quarrel. In the meantime the deceased escaped from the clutches of the accused and ran away. He was chased by the accused but was not able to be reached. Accused No.2 at that juncture uttered that he has saved himself and he would be seen later. The accused thereafter went away from the said place. CW -1 thereafter searched for her son who did not return to the house but as she could not trace him she returned to her house.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits accused No.2 who is his wife has been enlarged on bail by the jurisdictional Sessions Judge. He further submits the overt act attributed to this petitioner is that he assaulted the deceased with the handle of a spade. After the assault the deceased took to his heels by escaping from the clutches of the accused. Thereafter his body is traced on the evening of 18.2.2013 nearly about two days after the assault. In the meantime though according to the prosecution the occurrence had taken place in front of the house of CW -1 on 16.2.2013 at about 7.30 p.m. and the said occurrence had been witnessed by CWs 2, 3 and 4, no steps have been taken by them to file complaint before the police in respect of the assault made by the accused on the deceased. The complaint has been filed after the body of the deceased has been seen and traced by CW -13 near his land on the evening of 18.2.2013. The complaint is filed on 19.2.2013 i.e., nearly about 2 1/2 days after the occurrence. He submits that in the light of the delay in filing the complaint and as no steps have been taken either by CW -1 or CWs 2 to 4 to set the criminal law into motion immediately after the occurrence which had taken place at about 7.30 p.m. in front of the house of CW -1 on 16.2.2013, the prosecution case that the deceased had died on account of the injuries sustained at the hands of the accused is suspicious and as Accused No.2 has been already released on bail and having regard to the differences that were there between the accused on the one hand and the deceased and his mother on the other hand, there is no justification to decline the request of the petitioner.