RAVANSIDDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. The petitioner is one of the accused who is said to be charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147 and 148 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity). The complainant's husband one Saibanna had died and he was found dead near a TV Shop. On information being received the complainant had no suspicion that there was an unnatural death because her husband was given to drink heavily. Therefore he was quietly buried. It is six months later that on a fresh complaint by the complainant to the effect that, Saibanna, even before his marriage with complainant, had developed an illicit relationship with the mother of the petitioner one Boramma, and the relationship was open and to the knowledge of the husband of Boramma who was said to be suffering from an ailment and did not object to the relationship. However, it is claimed that the present petitioner took strong objection to Saibanna visiting their home and spending the time with his mother. And this was over several years. This, the complainant learnt in retrospect on rumours in the Village. It is on that basis that the fresh complaint was alleged, claiming that the petitioner who was vexed with the behavior of Saibanna had taken assistance of four others and had called Saibanna for a drink, taken him to an isolated place and after plying him with liquor had done him to death and brought him back to the TV Shop and made it look that he had died in sleep after consuming liquor. On the basis of the said allegation the police had sought to institute proceedings against the petitioner as well as four others. All of them having approached the Court below seeking anticipatory bail the Court below has granted anticipatory bail to the others while rejecting the petition of the petitioner with the reasoning that there was a plausibility of Saibanna having had an affair with the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner being angry with the relationship and after repeatedly warning the deceased had probably caused his death in the manner stated by the complainant and the Court below has opined that since the matter was at the investigation stage, notwithstanding that the complainant had, instituted the complaint after six months from the date of the incident has yet found reason to reject the anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out that the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court insofar as the other accused is concerned would equally apply to the petitioner. The only difference the Court has found is that the present petitioner may possibly have had a motive to kill the deceased. This is merely on the suspicion of the complainant and admittedly it is six months after the death of Saibanna that the complainant has come up with this theory of a motive on the part of the petitioner. Therefore he would submit that the Court was not justified in taking a different view insofar as the present petitioner is concerned as to his involvement in the alleged crime when there are no other witnesses and it is merely the say of the complainant who has gone by rumours and other talk of the village in presuming that there was such a motive and that it was engineered by the petitioner in doing the deceased to death.

(3.) The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor on the other hand strongly objects to the petition and would submit that the complainant had learnt about the relationship between the Saibanna and Boramma much earlier but was not certain about the cause of death at the relevant point of time. It is in retrospect that she had learnt of the same on the body of Saibanna having been exhumed and subjected to post-mortem which had revealed several injuries which went in unnoticed in the first instance. Therefore the unnatural death has been established only by hindsight and the motive, in the death of Saibanna, would clearly point to the involvement of the petitioner who was openly angry with Saibanna and this conduct was on for several years. Therefore, it is on that basis that the complaint was brought by the wife of the deceased afresh after six months from the date of death. The subsequent investigation has indeed justified the suspicion of the complainant and further the stage at which the anticipatory bail was rejected by the Court below was at a time, when the investigation was yet to be completed and the charge-sheet was yet to be filed. If the petitioner is able to make out a case for regular bail, the petitioner could very well-approach the Court below which would have benefit of entire records and could consider the claim of the petitioner for enlargement on bail. And therefore, would submit that the reasoning of the Court below that the petitioner stands on a different footing from the other accused is perfectly valid and is justified. Given the above rival contentions and the circumstances of the case the filing of the charge-sheet make little difference in a case such as this when the entire allegations are based on the complaint which has been filed six months after the incident. The fact that the medical records would indicate that there was an unnatural death by itself would not be sufficient to implicate the petitioner. The further circumstance that the petitioner could possibly have had a strong motive to commit the murder of the deceased would also not be tenable. Since the Court below has taken a view that the named accused could not, merely on the suspicions of their involvement be implicated is as reasoning that would also apply insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The mere suspicion of the complaint or the here say evidence on the basis which she had suspect the motive of the petitioner would not be sufficient to deny bail. Therefore the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail.