RAVI @ MUNDE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.290/2018 with respect to offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused is the neighbour of CW.1 and it is stated that three years prior to the incident, wife of CW.1 had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the accused and the same has not bee been returned to the accused. It is stated that on 17.04.2018, when CW.1 enquired about the same, the accused who was intoxicated has abused CW.1 with filthy language. In that connection, a complaint is stated to have been lodged on 18.04.2018. With respect to the complaint dated 18.04.2018, both parties had settled the dispute amongst themselves. However, there were subsequent altercations and on 26.07.2018, it is stated that the accused having noticed that his cow was dead, suspecting that the deceased was responsible and on noticing that the deceased washing the clothes near Snanaghatta river, Varuna Kaluve, it is alleged that the accused assaulted the deceased with an iron rod, thereafter stabbing her and thus committed murder and threw the dead body and the weapon into the river. A complaint was lodged, investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for petitioner contends that the case is made out in the charge sheet on the basis of statements of CW.5 and CW.8 who are stated to have seen the commission of offence. However, it is contended that since the said statements are recorded on 31.07.2018, though the incident had taken place on 26.07.2018, delay in recording the said statements not having been explained, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the version of CW.5 and CW.8 is a matter to be proved during trial and prima-facie there are doubts that could be entertained. It is contended that recovery is also doubtful insofar as recovery of weapon was from the Canal with flowing water and hence prima-facie there is doubt as regards the story of the prosecution which would entitle the petitioner to be enlarged on bail. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 27.07.2018 and the proceedings regarding grant of bail cannot be treated to be punitive in nature. The attribution of motive and its proof is also a matter for trial.