M.T.GAJENDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, the sole accused in S.C.No.1451/12 pending before 13th Fast Track Court, Bangalore City, is charged for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is said to have committed murder of one Asha, daughter of CW1-Ramesh, Son of Angegowda.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution CW1- Ramesh lodged a report on 22.10.2010 before the respondent-police station in respect of the death of his daughter Asha in her matrimonial home where she was living with her husband. Though he did not have any clue as to the cause of her death, he stated in the complaint that he noticed reddishness on the neck of the dead body. Hence, he requested the jurisdictional police to investigate the matter. On the basis of the said report the respondent-police registered case in UDR No.97/10 under Section 107 (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and took up investigation. The Tahsildar conducted inquest over the dead body and later sent the dead body to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital for Post Mortem examination. During P.M. Examination viscera was collected and sent for FSL examination. It appears the Post Mortem report said to have been sent by the hospital in a sealed cover addressed to the Tahsildar was misplaced. For nearly two years there was no progress in the investigation of the case. However, on 06.06.2012 the Investigating Officer said to have received a copy of the post mortem report wherein the Doctor who had conducted the Post Mortem examination had opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of combined effect of smothering and compression of neck. However, final opinion reserved pending for want of Histopathological examination and chemical analysis report. On the basis of the said opinion the Investigating Officer was of the view that it was a homicidal death. Therefore, he converted the UDR case registered earlier into a criminal case and accordingly he registered the case in Crime No.477/12 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code against unknown persons.

(3.) DURING interrogation this petitioner said to have confessed to the crime and also said to have disclosed that he was loving the deceased while he and the deceased were residing in the same village. Thereafter, this petitioner said to have been identified by Mahalingegowda as the same person who had come to his shop on 22.10.10 and enquired about the house of deceased Asha. To that effect the further statement of CW2 came to be recorded. On that basis the petitioner was arraigned as accused and later subjected to judicial custody. On completion of the investigation, the I.O. filed charge sheet and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. The application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.