SIDDARAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to proceedings in Crime No.3/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 04.01.2018, the complainant visited the respondent-police station and lodged a complaint stating that his sister was given in marriage to one Mahadevaiah. He further stated that the deceased was working as a painter and visiting the village once in a week. On 03.01.2018, at about 10.00 a.m., when the complainant was at home along with his sister and the deceased, the petitioner visited the house and took the deceased in a motor bike to Hullahalli village. It is stated that at about 4.00 p.m., the complainant had made a telephone call to the deceased. It is stated that the deceased informed him that he was assaulted by the petitioner and other accused stating that he was responsible for the eloping of Suresh and Bhanumathi. It is stated that the deceased was taken for medical treatment, however, he succumbed to injuries and died. The investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed on the basis of the FIR that was lodged.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the version of the complainant was informed by the deceased with respect to the assault, no call records had been obtained during the course of the investigation to evidence that the complainant had called the deceased. It is further contended that the question of commission of offence is a matter to be proved during the trial and that there was no direct eyewitness and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner.