ROOPASHREE Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking her release on bail of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, registered in respondent - police station in Crime No.479/2017.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case is that the mother of the petitioner herein and the wife of the deceased furnished the information dated 13.09.2017 to the police, wherein it is stated that herself and her three daughters were residing in the two sheet house and the deceased was staying in one sheet house. Without bringing to the knowledge of the complainant, the deceased sold the properties i.e., sites in favour of one Subramani by taking advance amount in the year 2013. After coming to know of the same, the complainant along with her daughters filed a suit as against deceased before the Civil Court. Since then, the deceased was not in talking terms with the complainant and her daughters. On 13.09.2017, at 8.30 a.m., the complainant went to attend work and her elder daughter Shashirekha also went to attend work. On the same day, when complainant came back at 5.00 p.m., her two daughters namely Roopashree/petitioner herein and Nandini informed that the father has not at all come out of the house and then they informed the same to Shashirekha/eldest daughter. Thereafter, they had went inside the house and saw the deceased was in a sleeping position and when they touched the body they noticed that he was not alive. It is further stated that about one week back he fell down nearby the gate accidentally and at that time he sustained some force on the chest portion and on chin portion there was a abrasion injury. Husband of the complainant was addicted to consume alcohol. Therefore, because of the fall about one week back he might have died. On the basis of the same, firstly UDR case in UDR No.58/2017 came to be registered under Section 174(c) of Cr.P.C. But subsequently inquest was conducted, so also the post mortem was conducted by the doctor. The doctor who conducted post mortem examination gave his opinion that the death is because of the manual strangulation. Therefore, FIR came to be registered. During the course of the investigation, the present petitioner has been arrayed as accused.

(3.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.