HONNURSWAMY Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner -accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that, on 05.06.2015 at about 6.45 a.m. accused No. 2 -Chikkanna called over telephone and informed that complainant's mother is not responding. Immediately the complainant and her husband came to the house and poured water into the bed room. However, the deceased did not woke up. Thereafter they break open the lock of grill door and door lock and went inside the room and noticed that her mother was lying and they immediately shifted her to VIMS, Ballari. The Doctor after examining her declared that she is dead. It is further averred that from 10.06.2015 the complainant and her husband went to the house of the deceased for cleaning work. On 16.06.2015 when the complainant was verifying the documents pertaining to her mother, did not get the bank pass book and cheque book and the gold ornaments were also missing It is further alleged that from 13.06.2015 the petitioner herein and accused Nos. 1 and 2 did not turn up for duty and the keys were also missing. Suspecting foul the complainant went to the bank and verified her mother's account and came to know that on 03.06.2015, petitioner herein had drawn a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ - but the said fact was not informed by her mother. Therefore, on 17.06.2015 they lodged another complaint suspecting hand of the present petitioner along with accused Nos. 2 and 3, on the basis of which a case has been registered against them for the offence punishable u/S 302 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner made submission that there are no independent eyewitnesses to the incident. Case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. He made submission that on 05.06.2015 as per the information furnished by the complainant herself, a case was registered in UDR No. 11/2015. But, subsequently, i.e., on 17.06.2015 complainant filed another complaint suspecting about involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged offence.