TROY HILLARY ALEMAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

(2.) The brief factual matrix of the case is that the deceased Alexander John D'Mello and the petitioner were staying together in a house situated at Kukkanduru village in Karkala Taluk. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of the voluntary statement of the accused and as far as the other surrounding circumstances that the accused and the deceased on the particular date of the incident that was on 21.10.2018 they consumed alcohol and they quarreled with each other for the purpose of alcohol consumption and the quarrel reached to the climax and in that context the deceased has sustained some injuries. Both were fought with knives and therefore the deceased sustained some more injuries and he succumbed to the injuries.

(3.) The voluntary statement of the accused is mainly relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge to reject the bail petition. In other words, while the learned Sessions Judge has observed at para 9 of his order that there was no motive prior to the incident and actually the petitioner and the deceased were friends. However, the incident happened without any pre meditation and there is sudden quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased. The trial Court rejected the bail petition only on the ground that in order to conceal the incident and destroy the evidence, the petitioner has washed the knives. The trial Court also observed that it creates a serious doubt falls under the category of culpable homicidal amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. But holding that it is too premature to say that it is a culpable homicide amounting to murder, rejected the bail petition. In my opinion such benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the petitioner. The prosecution has to prove that intentionally and with such motive the accused has committed murder. The incident appears to have happened in a spur of movement and both have quarreled each other as per the voluntary statement of the accused as relied upon by the trial Court. Under the above said circumstances when there is no other materials on record, the prosecution has to prove during the course of trial beyond reasonable doubt that it falls under Section 302 of IPC. In the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner in my opinion is entitled to be enlarged on bail as there is no previous bad antecedents alleged against him. Hence the following: