HALASIDDA HOLEPPA HANAMSAGAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-state.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that on one Sri Arjun Sidramappa Balanaik has lodged the complaint stating that the petitioner herein took the wife of deceased for 4-5 days and thereafter came back and panchayath was held. There was an illicit relationship between the wife of deceased and this petitioner and hence this petitioner has left the village stating that his reputation was spoiled. That on 17.06.2018, one Shivanand Nandi had called the complainant over the phone and informed that his brother was subjected to assault in the house of his brother and his wife came and informed that her husband was subjected to assault. Thereafter, immediately they rushed to the house and found that the injured had sustained injury to his private part and also over the body and immediately he was taken to Gokak Government hospital and thereafter District hospital. On the way to the hospital, he last his breath and on enquiry, the wife of brother informed that at about 11.00 p.m., she went to attend nature call, this petitioner and other five persons were standing outside the house and they held her and caused threat to her and assaulted her husband with wooden stick and sickle and caused threat not to tell the same to anybody. Immediately, she went and informed the same to this complainant. Hence, a complaint is lodged against this petitioner and others. The case has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 448, 506, 302 r/w 149 of IPC.

(3.) The petitioner in this petition contended that he is innocent of the offences and the very complaint shows that he left the village long back and the very allegation that this petitioner is having illicit relationship with the wife of deceased is totally false and the police with an intention to help the real accused have created the false story against the petitioner. It is further contended that there is no any overt-act allegation against this petitioner and only with an intention to harass the petitioner a false complaint is filed. This petitioner is having 6 and 7 years old children and having permanent abode and ready to obey the conditions that may be imposed by this Court.