Manu K M vs State By Begur Police Station
2023 Latest Caselaw 6776 Kant

                                                -1-
                                                            NC: 2023:KHC:34850
                                                        CRL.A No. 1425 of 2023




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                                              BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1425 OF 2023
                      BETWEEN:

                            MANU K M
                            S/O MANJE GOWDA
                            AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
                            R/AT No. E, 3504
                            I FLOOR SHEET HOUSE
                            NEAR SHREE RAM TEMPLE
                            PAPAYAREDDY LAYOUT
                            CHOWDESHWARI NAGAR, BEGUR
                            BANGALORE - 560 076
                                                              ...APPELLANT

                      (BY SRI. KIRAN S S, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    STATE BY BEGUR POLICE STATION
                            REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally signed by         HIGH COURT BUILDING
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI             BANGALORE - 560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             2.    SRI SHIVARAM REDDY
                            S/O LATE PAPAIAH REDDY
                            AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
                            RESIDING AT No.E, 3504
                            PAPAIAH REDDY LAYOUT
                            BEGUR MAIN RAOD
                            CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR
                            BENGALURU - 560 076.
                                                             ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1
                       R2 - SERVED AND APPEARED BEFORE THE COURT)
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2023:KHC:34850
                                     CRL.A No. 1425 of 2023




     THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2023
PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSION JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU IN
C.MISC.NO.4970/2023    AND   ALLOW     THE   APPEAL   BY
ENLARGING THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CR.NO.256/2022
FILED BY BEGUR P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302 OF IPC
AND ETC.,

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed praying to set aside the order

dated 21.06.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No. 4970/2023 by

the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and

Special Judge, Bengaluru whereunder the bail petition of

the appellant - accused sought in respect of crime No.

256/2022 of Begur Police Station for offence punishable

under Section 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SCST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter

referred to as `the Act, 1989') came to be rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for appellant - accused and

learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 - State.

Respondent No. 2 appeared and submitted no objection to

grant bail to the appellant - accused.

NC: 2023:KHC:34850 CRL.A No. 1425 of 2023

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased

Smt. Sangeetha was residing in vatara No. E3504 of

Papaiah Reddy Layout which belongs to the complainant -

respondent No.2 and at that time, she came in contact

with the appellant - accused and they started to love each

other and also started to live together in the sheeted

house in the said vatara stating that they have married

each other. On 25.09.2022 at about 07.00 pm the

deceased picked up quarrel with the appellant - accused in

connection with his late coming to the house. Said quarrel

went to extreme level. The appellant - accused with an

intention to commit murder of the deceased Smt.

Sangeetha assaulted her on cheek, hit her head against

the wall, squeezed the neck and also hanged her with the

help of duppatta and killed her. After confirming the death

of the deceased, the appellant - accused has taken her to

St.John's Hospital pretending that the death was caused

due to heart attack. As such, complaint came to be filed

against the appellant - accused for offence under Section

302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989. The

NC: 2023:KHC:34850 CRL.A No. 1425 of 2023

appellant - accused filed Crl.Misc. No. 4970/2023 seeking

bail and the same came to be rejected by the impugned

order which is challenged in this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for appellant - accused would

contend that as per the statements of C.W.11 to C.W.15

the age of deceased Smt. Sangeetha is 47-48 years but in

all prosecution records her age is mentioned as 28 years.

Report of medical examination of appellant - accused

reveals that he has not sustained any external injuries

which itself shows that he has not made any attempt to

kill the deceased. There are no eye witnesses to the

incident and the case of the prosecution is based on

circumstantial evidence. As charge sheet is filed, the

appellant - accused is not required for custodial

interrogation. With this he prayed to allow the appeal and

grant bail to the appellant - accused.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for

respondent No.1 - State would contend that the offence

alleged against the appellant - accused is heinous offence.

NC: 2023:KHC:34850 CRL.A No. 1425 of 2023

Averments of the complaint itself goes to show that the

appellant - accused and deceased were residing in the

house of the complainant - respondent No. 2 situated in

the vatara as husband and wife and he has seen the

appellant - accused taking the deceased to the hospital

stating that she has suffered heart attack. It is his further

submission that C.W.4 to C.W.6 have also stated in their

statements that the deceased and the appellant - accused

were residing as husband and wife in the vatara of

respondent No. 2 - complainant and on the date of

incident the appellant - accused took the deceased to the

hospital stating that she has suffered heart attack, where

she was reported dead. Charge sheet material show prima

facie case against the appellant - accused. Postmortem

report reveal that the death of the deceased is due to

asphyxia due to throttling. The deceased had suffered

seven injuries and the appellant - accused who was

residing with the deceased has to explain as to how those

injuries were sustained by the deceased. With this he

prayed to dismiss the appeal.

NC: 2023:KHC:34850 CRL.A No. 1425 of 2023

6. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant -

accused and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State

this Court has gone through the impugned order and

charge sheet records.

7. Averments of the complaint and the statements of

C.W.4 to C.W.6 reveal that the appellant - accused and

the deceased were residing in the vatara of respondent

No. 2 - complainant. C.W.4 to C.W.6 are the neighbours

of appellant - accused. In their statements, C.W.4 to

C.W.6 have stated that on the date of incident, i.e., on

25.09.2022 at about 07.00 pm the appellant - accused

brought the deceased lifting and when they asked, the

appellant - accused told them that the deceased had fallen

tired and when others enquired, the appellant - accused

told that his wife has suffered heart attack. The very

statements of C.W.4 to C.W.6 show that the appellant -

accused was last seen with the deceased by them. The

appellant - accused was residing with the deceased in the

house in the vatara of respondent No.2 - complainant

NC: 2023:KHC:34850 CRL.A No. 1425 of 2023

wherein C.W.4 to C.W.6 are neighbours. The postmortem

report reveals that the deceased had sustained seven

injuries and cause of her death is asphyxia as a result of

throttling. Considering all these aspects, there is a prima

facie case against the appellant - accused for the offence

alleged against him. Considering all these aspects learned

Sessions/Special Judge has rightly rejected the bail

petition. There are no grounds to set aside the impugned

order and grant bail to the appellant - accused. Hence, the

appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LRS