LAXMI Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under section 439 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731973 (henceforth for brevity referred to as 'Cr.P.C') praying to enlarge her on bail in Crime No.21/2018 of the respondent police station for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth for brevity referred to as 'IPC') insofar as present petitioner/accused no.2 is concerned.

(2.) The summary of the case of the prosecution as could be gathered from the charge sheet filed in the matter is that, in the intervening night of 12.03.2018 and 13.03.2018, one Siddappa, the younger brother of complainant (Basappa), was brutally murdered in the lands of one Sri. Shivappa S/o. Irappa Gubbi. The charge sheet accuses that the present petitioner, who is accused No.2 had an illicit relationship with accused No.1- Ravikumar and that both of them hatched a conspiracy to eliminate deceased Siddappa, who is the husband of accused No.2. In that regard, on the night of 12.03.2018 accused No.1-Ravikumar, who met Siddappa on the road, took him to the place of incident on the pretext of enjoying beer drink with him. After taking him to the said place, he assaulted the deceased with the knife which he was carrying and inflicting fatal injuries and caused his death.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that admittedly the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Even according to the prosecution, it is only based upon suspicion, the accused No.1 is said to have been apprehended and during his interrogation, it is stated that he revealed about the commission of the crime. As such, the alleged voluntary disclosure by accused No.1 itself is doubtful in the case. Further, learned counsel submitted that even according to prosecution, accused No.2 was not present at the time of alleged incident. There is no material about the alleged conspiracy. The alleged recovery of the knife is also at a different place, which is unconnected to the accused No.2/petitioner. As such, the role of accused No.2/petitioner is highly suspicious in the alleged commission of crime. As such, she deserves her enlargement on bail.