R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.387 OF 2013 Between:
Smt. Jaya Chacko D/o I Chacko Aged about 48 years Residing at No.10 5th Cross, Vignananagar New Thippasandra Post Bangalore – 560 075.
... Petitioner (By Sri M T Nanaiah – Sr. Counsel and Sri B N Balasubramanya – Advocate for Sri M R C Manohar - Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka By Jeevan Bhima Nagar Police Bangalore Investigated by (CID Police).
... Respondent (By Sri Thejesh .P - HCGP) ****** This Crl.R.P. is filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to, set aside the order passed by the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in S.C.No.267/11 and discharge the petitioner from the offence p/u/s 306 r/w 34 of IPC.
This Crl.R.P. coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri M.T. Nanaiah and the learned counsel Shri B.N. Balasubramanya for the petitioner and the learned HCGP Shri Thejesh for the State.
2. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the Court below in S.C.No.267/2011 dated 04.04.2013, whereby the application filed by accused No.2 – petitioner herein under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. was partly allowed discharging the accused from the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, but however to proceed against the accused under Section 306 read with 34 IPC.
3. The factual matrix of this petition is as under:
The petitioner Smt. Jaya Chacko is arraigned as Accused No.2 in respect of the complaint in Crime No.303/2010 filed under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC filed by one Patil Puttappa. The said complaint was lodged against the present accused alleging that she was instrumental for the suicide of one Shanthala Patil, wife of Accused No.1, who committed suicide by dousing kerosene and setting herself ablaze. It was alleged in the complaint that the deceased Shanthala was married to Accused No.1 Basavaraj in the year 1974 and that they had two children. But however, it is stated that Basavaraj developed an illicit relationship with the present petitioner - accused Jaya Chacko from the past twenty years and she also had a son out of the said relationship. Due to this illicit relationship, there was said to be frequent quarrels between the deceased Shanthala and Accused No.1 Basavaraj and when questioned about the relationship, Accused No.1 is said to have threatened her to give divorce. Unable to bear the harassment meted out by Accused No.1 in view of the illicit relationship he held with Accused No.2, it is stated that Shanthala is said to have committed suicide. As a result of the complaint being lodged, a case was registered and the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet. Though the J.B. Nagar Police had registered a UDR case, in view of a fresh complaint filed by the father of the deceased, the complaint in Crime No.303/2010 was registered under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC and proceeded against the accused. However, the present petitioner - accused No.2 filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the alleged offences. The court below by its order dated 04.04.2013 in S.C.No.267/2011, discharged the accused from the offence under Section 498A IPC but however directed to proceed against the accused under Section 306 read with 34 IPC. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition urging various grounds.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that merely because the first accused had an illicit relationship with the petitioner, it cannot be said that she had extended physical as well as mental harassment to the deceased Shanthala which had led her to commit suicide, as narrated in the complaint. Initially, the case had been registered as UDR.18/2010 and subsequent to initiation of the UDR, the case was taken up for investigation as contemplated under Section 174 Cr.P.C. During the proceeding, the concerned competent authority had conducted inquest over the dead body of Shanthala and closed the proceedings as there was no sufficient material relating to involvement of the accused to have caused the death of the deceased. The history regarding burns was given by the deceased herself, which goes to show that the burns sustained by Shanthala were ‘accidental thermal burns’. In spite of the same, the learned counsel contends that based on a fresh complaint, a fresh crime was registered in Crime No.303/2010 which though belated, was proceeded for investigation.
The learned counsel contends that though 35 witnesses are cited in the charge-sheet, none of the statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer implicates the petitioner in the alleged offences. The petitioner though not a relative of the deceased or the first accused, has been roped in as an accused and the petitioner as a result has been put to untold mental agony. Further, the entire charge-sheet materials collected by the Investigating Authority do not prima facie make out a case against the petitioner nor there is any iota of evidence against her for an offence under Section 306 IPC. Hence, he contends that even without sufficient material, framing charge against the petitioner would only be a futile exercise.
Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the order passed by the Trial Court in S.C.No.267/2011 dated 4.4.2013 be set aside and the petitioner be discharged from the offence under Section 306 read with 34 IPC as well.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP for the State has taken me through the scope and object of Section 498A of IPC. He contends that though the Trial Court has discharged the petitioner from the offence under Section 498A IPC in view of the fact that she was not related to the deceased or accused, it cannot be said that the accused did not extend physical or mental harassment to the deceased Shanthala leading to her committing suicide. Further, the learned HCGP contends that the present accused had been in illicit relationship with Accused No.1, which was the cause for the deceased to undergo depression which had led her to commit suicide. Hence he contends that the Trial Court has rightly held the accused guilty of offence under Section 306 read with 34 IPC though discharged her of the offence under Section 498A IPC. Hence, the learned HCGP contends that the order passed by the Trial Court being just and proper, needs no interference in this revision petition.
6. On a careful consideration of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner - accused and the learned HCGP and having regard to the material on record, it is gathered from the ‘History sheet’ of the Victoria Hospital where the deceased Shanthala was admitted immediately after having suffered burns, that Shanthala herself had given her statement to the Medical Officer. She has given statement before the Medical Officer as on 22.07.2010 that when she was carrying a can of kerosene oil to her kitchen for cooking, it had accidentally fell down and spilled over the floor and caught fire. Thus, the record reveals that deceased Shanthala had sustained ‘accidental thermal burns’. Further, though 35 witnesses have been cited in the charge-sheet, none of the witness has implicated the petitioner to be responsible for the offence. As on 24.07.2010 itself, Dr. Vali S.V., a relative of deceased Shanthala had filed a petition before the respondent – police based upon which a case in UDR No.18/2010 was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Immediately on that day itself, the police had recorded the statements of witnesses and completed the investigation and had filed a report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and closed the case.
The present petition pertains to a fresh complaint dated 11.08.2010 which was filed by one Patil Puttappa, the father of the deceased. The said complaint was committed to the Court of Sessions in S.C.No.267/2011 and thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The learned Sessions Judge on examining the material on record, discharged the accused from the offence under Section 498A IPC but directed that she should face trial for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. But however, on a careful consideration of the contentions of the counsel for the parties and the material on record, I find that there is no iota of evidence against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Since there is no material against her, I am of the opinion that it would be a futile exercise to direct the Trial Court to proceed against the petitioner by framing charges.
Hence, I find that no useful purpose would be served in directing the Trial Court to proceed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 IPC. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER This revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court in S.C.No.267/2011 dated 4.4.2013 is hereby set-aside. The petitioner – accused is discharged from the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 IPC including the offence under Section 498A IPC. Thus, she is totally discharged of the alleged offences leveled against her.
However, any observation made in this order shall not influence the mind of the Trial Court in the conduct of the proceedings in S.C.No.267/2011 against the other accused.
Sd/- JUDGE KS