IN THE man COURT OF' KARNATA¥f?3 .
cmcurr BENCH AT n1~1ARwA.I} ' V "
DATED THIS THE 218'!' DAY-o'F'i~zoyEf.MgauE:§'.2é03'.V 'V
BEVFQRE
THE HON'!-3LE
CRIMINAL .1>E'r:'r;<.~':iI'LV:J(3;.fz43g[_;_29ogAV. 7
BETVWEEN:
SriShanka1'ay3'?a.__ " I 7
S/o.S}1iva111dzi3y3¢'a Mefi
Age:3() yt°_:a:'sv_ V
R/o.Tadako<': *
Ta1uk,_6§VI)iati:'iC€: ...Pcfi1:io-net
(By A-'BQI5aiiii,.. %
Amy V _ % _'
we state 51*
State Pub%----Pmsecutor
' «.«Di:ax"v:a..1_ eipcuit Bench
»Po_Ha::§'Station. ...Respondent
* HCGP)
VA criminal petition is filed under swtion 439
Cr.P..{__.'.: praying to allow this bail petition and release the
.. AA 'p£;titioncr--accusai on baii in that Kjttur RS. Crime
'._=_I§d.;4~3]2G08 and C.C.No.447['2008 cm the file of JMFC,
Béiiihongal
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
The accused is alkged to hay? set D»
caused her death. After the
admitted to Bclgaum Instzitutntpf Medggat VA _
The Taluk Executive dying
declaration wherein that
intervening night of 25): sun. when the
deceased parental house,
the sét the dcocasw on fire.
Aftegtlziév igeoniai, the dmaed was
alive
_; ‘ ” 2. I11.Vti;1:V_VPc:stK1o1.;tcm Report, cause of death is shown
” « :’to:V%’s.*1pticcm”aa;”A as a result of burn injurk s.
Counsel for accused~pctitioner would
in the ‘Wound Certificate it is shown that
” had sufiitmd accidental burns. The learned
would submit that éeccascd was admzittfl to
hospital at about 6.%. am. As per the earlier version,
I\»’ . ¢3£i(‘\/\.,§.vv\eI,,” (
: 3 :
rocmtied by the Doctor, éeceased hm suifered
burns.
The learned Counsel would euéigr.-.9£_:
accused had also sufiened 7
hospitalized. in the cizt:1:~xz»3esfaa11ceAS, like
decimation xecouied by the Ex¢cu1u5vee§«1®_t§%atc is m;
improvement to falsc}jr~impliaz:éife’
4. I am not pcmmailed ‘eubmission made
by fer for the following reasons:
the version five}: by the decwscd
as to the qf
31$ nof’ele:s=::finm the contents of Wound Ceztizficaine
‘ Leas. ‘gave the history of injuries. The source of
.. Wheiefom, the statement made by the deceased before
.. A’ file Executive Mag’strate as to the cause of her death
squarely fall under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. At
this stage, much importance camxot be given to the lfmtory
of injuries shown in the Wound Cextificate. The burn injuries
{\,:., 5,9/L» t”~»v~t£….
sufiemd by the accused would confirm presence of accused
at the time of occunence. However, at this stage -by
the mere presence of burn injuries on the efiot’;
possible to draw an inference ‘se”t ‘
on fire or that deceased had
injuries, while tying to tize
sufibmd burn i:::1ju1t§r:s.__ ‘h ‘ b
5. It is needless consul’ cring bail
application the Anéazeejm I a. analysis
of the file case. The Court is only
or otherw1se’ of puma’ facie
case._
In tlee on hanci, con:si.der:n’ g the strain’ ed
‘ ybenveen the couple before the case, the
“p.Ii;eefiee’.v–“oif accused at the time of occurrence and dying
made by the deceased before the Taluka
V. x Exeeuieivc Mags’ irate, I hold that them is puma’ facie against
‘”‘§t:’I 1e aac:ct1se(1 for an efienee punishable under Section 302
Having regard to the nature and mamitude of the
N: J/K