IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED TillS THE ICH DAY OF ALGLST. 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE BV.PlNTO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10898, 10899 c/w 10945/2011 CRLRNO. 1O9JOli BETWEEN: 1. HG. Mallikarjuna 5/0 Gancleppa Aged 26 years. 0cc: Agriculturist R/o \/osakeri viHage Tci. Hagaribommanahalli. Dist. Bellary. 2. (i.Gandeppa S/c late Gidclappa Aged 66 years, Ccc: Agnculiurist R/o Vosakeri village Tq. Hagaribommanahalli. Dist. Bellarv. PETITIONERS (BY SRI T. HAND MAREDDY ADVOCATE) The State by Sublnspector of Police Kudligi Police Station, Kuclligi Dist. Bellarv, r/bv SPP High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad. RESPONDENT common in all petitIons) (By Shri V.5, Kulakarni, HCGP) This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioners on hail in Crime No.7/201 1 of Kudligi Police Station for offences under Sec. 143, 147, 498A. 324, 307, 302 r/w 149 IPC. CRL.P. l08)9/201 1 1. iviv larappa s/o Gancleppa Aged 35 years. Occ:Agriculturist R/o Vosakeri village Tq. Hagaribommanahalli, Dis. Bellarv. 2. Smt, Saritharnma\V/o Mvlarappa Aged 30 years, 0cc: Agriculturist R/o Vosakeri village Tc 1. Hagarihommanahalli. Dist. Bellarv. PETITIONERS (B sri T. Hanurnareddv, Advocate) This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 CrPC. seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in C6me No.7 / 201 1 of Kudligi Police Station for oHences under Sec. 143. 147, 498A, 324, 307. 302 r/w 149 IPC. CrL P.l.O945jQjj Smt GangammaW/o Gandappa Age: 60 years. R/o Vosakeri villae Tq. H.B,Halli, Dist. Bellarv. PETITIONER By Sri T. Hanumareddv Advocate This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P,C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.7/2011 of Kudligi Police Station for offences under Sec. 143. 147. 498A. 324. 307. 302 r/w 149 IPC. These petitions coming on for orders this day, the court made the following: ORDER These three petitions are filed seekmg bail and anticipatory bail in Crime No.7/20 1 1 registered in Kuciligi Police Station. Beilarv district on 7.220 ii for offences under Sec. 143, 147, 498A, 324. 307 r/w 149 IPC. On the death of the injured Netra. on 22.3.20 1 1. the offence came to be registered for the one under Sec.302 IPC along with other sections, 2. The case of the prosecution rests on dying declaration said to have been recorded by the Tahsildar. Davangere. on 2.2.20 1 1. In the said dvin declaration, the deceased \ctra has stated that her husband. father-in-law, mother-in-law. sister-in-law and her husbands brother are responsible for hr death. It is stated that on 1.2,201 1, Tuesday, at about -4- 10 p.m., her husband Mallikarjuna, father-in-law Gandappa, mother-in-law Gangamma and brother of her husband by name Mylarappa and his wife Savithamma poured kerosene on her and set her on fire and attempted to commit her murder. It is further stated in the dying declaration that when her male child was not well, she requested her husband to take the child to the doctor and since her husband did not give money, she took her child to the hospital. In the night when she was in the house, all the above persons started quarrelling with her and thereafter, they assaulted her and poured kerosene on her and set heron fire. 3. Heard Sri T Hanumareddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.S. Kulkarni, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. The learned HCGP has filed objections. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a correction in the dying -0- declaration said to have been made by the deceased before the Tahsildar. He further submits that though the incident has happened on 1.2.2011, FIR is registered on 7.2.201 1. It is further submitted that the signature of the elder sister of the deceased is found in the dying declaration. Hence. he submits that in view of the correction carried out in the original dying declaration, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful. 5. The learned HCCIP on the other hand submits that the dying declaration was sent by the learned Taluka Magistrate by dispatching it to the concerned police station and therefore, the delay has occurred. He ftirther submits that the neighbours who are CWs. 6 to 10 have also supported the case of the prosecution regarding the incident in the house. It is submitted by him that after the investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet against all the petitioners for offences including the one under Sec.302 1PC. Since a the matter regarding delay and discrepancy in the contents of dying declaration is a matter of appreciation of evidence, at this stage, there is a prima facie case for offence under Sec.302 IPC against the petitioners. 6. Since the otlence under Sec.(i2 I PC is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, all the three petitions are rejected. The observations made in this order is only for the purpose of disposed of these petitions and the same shall have no hearing on the merits of the case during trial Sd/-. JUDGE csg