SHANKRAPPA MALLAPPA HULILGOL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed seeking bail in Crime No.98/2012 of Gadag Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, on 17.6.2012.

(2.) IT is the case of the complainant Smt.Neelavva, who is the mother of the deceased Suvarna that the petitioner was charge sheeted for an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC for having committed rape on Suvarna in the year 2008 and in this connection on 29.5.2012 the deceased had gone to the Court to give evidence in the said rape case. It is stated in the complaint that after the evidence was over, the petitioner had threatened the deceased as to how she would come for evidence on the next date of hearing, which was posted to 20.6.2012. On 16.6.2012 in the night the deceased and her son by name Muttappa went to sleep on the Katta in front of the house and when the complainant got up at 06-00 a.m., she was informed by one of the street lady that the deceased is sleeping and her clothes are helter-skelter. On carefully looking at the deceased it was found that the deceased had sustained cut injury on her neck and immediately she raised cries and when observed, there was severe injury on the neck and her daughter had died. When they questioned Muttappa, he informed that in the night the petitioner had come and had closed the mouth of the deceased and thereafter he has cut the neck. Since he was scared, he could not talk and thereafter he got sleep. Based on the above information the case came to be registered before the Rural P.S., Gadag. After investigation the charge sheet came to be filed.

(3.) ON the other hand the learned Addl. SPP submits that the clothes of the accused are blood stained and the same has been subjected to FSL. The knife used for commission of offence has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. He further submits that the aforesaid articles are found to be stained with A group blood and it is not the case of the petitioner that he was injured on the date of incident. It is also further submitted by him that the petitioner has made extra judicial confession before CW.17 Irappa and CW.18 Pramod. Under the circumstances there is sufficient material to hold that petitioner is guilty of offence of murder. Hence he submits that the application for bail may be rejected.