SUMAN BASUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.265/2013 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC, are before this Court praying for enlarging them on bail.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that the deceased -Sagar Chatri was the husband of accused No.3 -Anitha. On account of some differences, quarrels were taking place between the two. Ultimately, the deceased made arrangement to have his second wife. On coming to know of the same, accused No.3 filed petition seeking for divorce. Ultimately, by mutual consent the marriage of the deceased with accused No.3 was dissolved in M.C.No.2750/2012 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore on 06.02.2013.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners contends the material now placed on record does not disclose prima facie the present petitioners having committed an offence under Section 302 of IPC. According to him, on the night of the occurrence, after the deceased came to the house of the accused, he picked up quarrel with them and assaulted all of them with a knife, due to which all the three accused sustained injuries and they have been treated in the hospital the next day after their arrest. Along with petition, the wound certificates of the accused are also produced. That discloses the accused in the case have sustained injuries on their person at the relevant time on the date of occurrence. The material on record reveals that it is the deceased who had gone to the house of the accused and had picked up quarrel with them. He has abused and assaulted the accused. Thereafter, the accused have snatched knife which was in the hands of the deceased and inflicted the injuries on the deceased which has resulted in his death. Learned counsel submits having regard to these facts, the accused in exercise of the right of defence of their person have committed offence and even if assumed that they have inflicted more injury it may amount to exceeding right of private defence, hence the act of the accused does come within the purview of Section 302 of IPC. Accused No.3 has been granted bail by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. They are in custody since 13.06.2013. Therefore, they be enlarged on bail.