M.BHARATHI Vs. STATE BY HEBBAL POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the petition filed by the petitioner - accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 302 of IPC registered by the respondent - police in Crime No. 177/2013.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case that on the date of the incident deceased Pavithra had been to the house of the petitioner and the wife of the petitioner was not in the house. At that time, there was quarrel between Pavithra and the petitioner. As the petitioner told that he is treating her as his second wife and abused her, because of that reason, she got herself disappointed and took the kerosene Can and poured the kerosene and lit fire to herself. This dying declaration of the deceased was recorded on 12 -08 -2013. But it is the case of the prosecution that on 14 -08 -2013, again there was a dying declaration of the deceased Pavithra wherein, she has stated that on the date of the incident, when she was in her house, in the early morning petitioner called her to come to his house and after she went, there was a quarrel between the deceased and petitioner and also petitioner abused her in filthy language and stated that he is treating Pavithra as his second wife. For that reason, there was a quarrel between them, then the petitioner brought the oil Can and poured kerosene and set fire on her.

(3.) I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, F.I.R., complaint and also the dying declarations dated 12 -08 -2013 and 14 -08 -2013. Looking to the F.I.R., the second dying declaration said to have been on 14 -08 -2013. But it is the case of the prosecution that the first dying declaration was given by Pavithra on 12 -08 -2013. The police have not taken any action nor they have registered the F.I.R. and it is only on the second dying declaration, police proceeded with the case. Looking to both dying declarations, in one she has stated that she herself had been to the house of the petitioner and there was a quarrel between herself and the petitioner and as the petitioner abused her in filthy language and told that he will treat her as his second wife, she was disappointed and she took the kerosene. Can which was kept in the corner, of the house and poured and lit fire on herself. But the second dying declaration said to have been recorded on 14 -08 -2013, it is quite contrary to the contents of the earlier dying declaration, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner himself secured her to his house, picked up quarrel and abused her in filthy language and he also stated that he is going to finish off her stating so, he took the kerosene Can and poured and set fire on her and ran away from the house. Perusing the second dying declaration, as it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that last two lines are prima -facie said to have been inserted at a later stage and the style of writing of these two lines is all together different from the writing in the body of the said dying declaration. Therefore, at this stage, since there are two in -consistent dying declarations, no importance can be attached to the said document at this stage and it prima -facie goes to show that only to involve the present petitioner second document might have been created. Looking to the averments made in the bail petition, it is the contention of the petitioner that he is a married person having children and he never called the petitioner to his house, never quarreled with her and he has not at all committed the alleged offences and there is a false implication of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. He has undertaken in his bail petition that he is ready to abide by any of the reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court and since from the date of arrest, he is in custody. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the present petitioner.