IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K N PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5763 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. KARIYEGOWDA PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
2. KALAVATHI W/O KARIYEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
3. CHIKKALU @ CHIKKAHONNEGOWDA S/O MUYYEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
4. SMT.MAHADEVAMMA S/O CHIKKALU @ CHIKKAHONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
5. KUNNEGOWDA S/O MUYYEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
6. SHIVAMMA W/O KUNNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
7. SUBBESH @ SUBHASH S/O CHIKKALU AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.
8. PUTTEGOWDA S/O KUNNAJOGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENT OF SANGEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE TERAKANAMBI HOBLI GUNDLUPET 571123. ... PETITIONERS (BY:SMT.S.SUMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SURYA PRAKASH A M) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TERAKANAMBI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE 01.
2. NAGEGOWDA FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED MAJOR SANAGOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE TERAKANAMBI HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT- 571123. ... RESPONDENTS (BY:SRI S RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS IN SPL.C.NO.82/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 504 AND 306 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.11(i)(iv) R/W 12 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader. Perused the records.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused persons in Special Case No.82/2016 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 306, 504 and also 11(i), 11(iv) read with Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. It is submitted at the time of arguments that the petitioners had filed an application for discharge before the trial Court and the trial Court has only discharged the accused persons from the offences under Sections 11(i)(iv) read with Section 12 of POCSO Act and ordered to frame charges for the remaining offences. The petitioners in fact have sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in the said case on the ground that the offences under Sections 306, 143, 147, 149 and 504 are all not at all attracted.
3. Briefly stated the facts are that:
- on 12.10.2016 the complainant girl by name Kum.Rakshita had been to Sangegowdana Hundi and on 24.10.2016 in the afternoon the accused by name Sunil s/o Karegowda has quarreled with this girl, that has been informed by her to her father Nage Gowda and in turn the father of the victim has advised Sunil and thereafter, in connection with the same it is alleged that all the accused persons went near the house of the complainant and started quarrelling with the victim, her father and her mother and abused them in filthy language etc. In that connection, again on the same day in the evening at about 8 PM, all the accused once again went to the house of the victim and abused all the family members of the victim. This made the victim frustrated in life because all those incidents happened due to her and in that context on 25.10.2016 in the early hours at 4 am, she poured kerosene on herself lit fire and sustained severe burn injuries and later she succumbed to the injuries. On all these factual aspects, police have laid the charge sheet against the petitioners. Almost all the witnesses examined by the police have reiterated the above said aspects. Therefore, the Court has to analyse the said factual aspects to appreciate the same during the course of the trial in order to ascertain whether these circumstance are sufficient to provoke or instigate or drive that girl to commit suicide? Whether the accused persons had intended while abusing the family members of the victim to drive that girl or anybody to commit suicide? Therefore, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances have to be examined by the Court at the time of trial.
4. In this context, it is worth to mention here the decision of the Apex Court in AMIT KAPOOR vs RAMESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER reported in 2012(9) SCC 460 where the Apex Court has dealt with the offences under Sections 306 and 448 IPC and also petition under Section 228 Cr.P.C as to when the accused can be discharged for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The court has specifically stated that, “Final test of guilt is not to be applied at the stage of framing of charge – Grabbing of property of the deceased in that case who is a lady, drove her to commit suicide. It is alleged that the son of the deceased had taken the signature of the accused on the blank papers and not given monies due to them and other circumstances are stated. The circumstances were said to have led to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Therefore, the Apex Court has held that the Court has to examine all the circumstances in order to come to a definite conclusion. It can only be done after appreciating the materials on record. Specifically at paragraph 27 (12 and 13), the Apex Court has observed that, “In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. Even a suspicion is sufficient to proceed against the accused persons.
5. Applying the above said principles, there are certain circumstances which are stated by the witnesses, whether those circumstances are sufficient to drive a person to commit suicide is a factor which shall be decided by the Court on facts after evidence. In the above said facts and circumstances, I do not find any strong reasons to quash the entire proceedings at this stage. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, I.A.1/2017 does not survive for consideration.
Brn Sd/-
JUDGE