S. KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The petitioner is accused of having committed the murder of his wife and mother-in-law. The background is as follows:-

(2.) It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that contrary versions of the prosecution as to the manner in which the accused is said to have been apprehended or that he had voluntarily surrendered cannot be reconciled. Further, even if the recovery is said to have been made in the manner as stated by the petitioner himself, it cannot be reconciled with the fact that he had already surrendered on the previous day at 5 p.m. These contradictions would necessarily have to be established at the trial in order to bring home the charges against the petitioner. Mere statement of CWs. 2 and 3 of having seen the accused come out of the house and again go back is again unnatural. If a man had committed murder, he would want to certainly leave the place at once and since he had scooter at hand, he would have fled. It is not also the statement of the said witnesses that he was in blood stained clothes. The further coincident is that the complainant had already seen the dead bodies and she had come out. It is thereafter that the petitioner is said to have been seen coming from the second floor. Incidentally, the complainant does not refer to the presence of CWs. 2 and 3 and the statements of CWs. 2 and 3 were recorded two days thereafter. It is also stated that the petitioner is suffering from stomach ulcer and the treatment provided at the present hospital is inadequate and he is continuously suffering and has been in custody for the past one year eight months without the prospect of the trial commencing in the near future. The learned Counsel, therefore, would submit that in the presence of these contrary versions which require to be reconciled and established at the trial, the petitioner seeks to be enlarged on bail. In any event, the Government Pleader would interject to point out that C.W. 3 in her statement would indicate that she heard cries from the house of the deceased and she thought that there was usual quarrel between the petitioner and his wife and had later come out of the house along with C.W. 2 and had seen the petitioner in blood stained clothes go down the ground floor and pick up a fresh set of clothes and again go up to the place of the incident. This statement appears to be unnatural. First of all, the petitioner would have tried to hide himself after having committed the murder and even if he had come down and was seen by C.W. 2, there would have been blood in the place of murder. The petitioner having ventured to go down and pick up a fresh set of clothes and go up to the place of incident appears to be unnatural. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail.