IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.99 OF 2019 BETWEEN 1. Mayamma @ Thimamma, W/o. Kariyappa, Aged about 68 years, R/at Thibbanahalli Village, Devalapura Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandaya – 589 080.
2. Thimmesha, S/o. Kariyappa, Aged about 39 years, R/at Thibbanahalli Village, Devalapura Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya – 589 080.
3. Jayalakshmi @ Jayalakshmamma, W/o. Mallaiah, Aged about 47 years, Kajjikallanakoppalu, Beemanahalli (P) Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya – 589 080.
4. Savitha, W/o. Bettegowda, Aged about 42 years, R/at No.6, 5th Cross, Magadi Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 023.
Permanent Address:
Hombalekoppalu Village, Devalapur (H) Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya – 589 080.
5. Shobha, W/o. Venkatesha, Aged about 40 years, R/at Arasegowdanakoppalu Village, Devalapura Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya – 589 080.
6. Thimmappa, S/o. Doddahudagaiah, Aged about 40 years, R/at. Thibbanhalli Village, Devalapura Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya – 589 080.
Permanent Address:
Thibbanahalli Village, Devalapura Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya – 589 080. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Basavaraj S. Sappannavar, Advocate) AND State of Karnataka, By Nagamangala Rural Police Station, Nagamangala – 578 103. ... Respondent This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire records in S.C.No.38/2018 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mandya and peruse the legality and correctness of the impugned order at Annexure-D dated 01.10.2018 and to direct the Trial Court to frame charge against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) of IPC and under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming for Admission on this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to take notice for the respondent – State.
2. This revision petition is filed by petitioner Nos.1 to 6 who are accused Nos.2 to 7 before the Court of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in SC.No.38/2018 challenging the order of the trial Court passed under Section 228 of Cr.PC for framing of charge against the petitioners by order dated 01.10.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners simultaneously argued and submits that as per the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, the charges against accused No.1, the husband of the deceased Geetha @ Mahalakshmi, who is said to have been committed the murder of his wife. To destroy the evidence, he hanged the deceased and later cut down the veil and made to show the deceased had committed suicide, thereby accused No.1 has committed the offences under Sections 498A, 302, 201 of Cr.PC. However, the Investigating Officer also charge sheeted accused Nos.2 to 7, the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After committal of the Session’s Court, the learned trial Judge has opined to frame the charges against all the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is illegal and erroneous. Without there being any material available on record to frame the charge, in this regard, there is no eye witness to the incident, whereas accused No.1 and deceased was staying in a small house. The other members of the family i.e. the mother and the brother were not residing in the house at the time of the incident. The father of accused No.1 was also not present and he is paralyzed. They have not at all participated in commission of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. Therefore, the opinion of the trial Court to frame the charge against all the accused including these petitioners for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, is illegal and erroneous. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the order under revision and to direct the trial Court to frame appropriate charge individually against each accused.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State contended that as per the statement of the complainant, his brother and family members have stated before the Investigating Officer, which goes to show that accused No.1 and other members of the family have committed the alleged offences and destroyed the evidence. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held to frame the charge against all the accused for the aforesaid offences. Hence, he prays to dismiss the revision petition.
5. Upon hearing the arguments on both sides and on perusal of the records, it is going to be necessary to summarize brief facts of the case of the prosecution, which is as hereunder:
“PW1-Ravi is a brother of the deceased Geetha @ Mahalakshmi filed a complaint to the Police on 09.07.2017 stating that his sister marriage was with the accused No.1 and at the time of the marriage they gave gold and dowry articles to the accused No.1. Thereafter, his sister staying in the matrimonial home and having a child aged about three years and accused No.1 and other family members started harassing and ill-treated the deceased physically and mentally. He further alleges that the deceased used to inform to her family member regarding the harassment by her husband and in-laws. However, he further says that on 08.07.2017 in the night, the accused no.1 and other family members were killed his sister and hanged in the house. He requested to take legal action against them.”
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that in respect of the statement made by CW-2 – Sri.Kolali @ Shankara before the Investigating Officer at the time of Inquest Mahazar of the deceased, also speaks about the harassment tolerated by his sister in the hands of accused No.1. Another statement of his brother and other witnesses including panchanama, which clearly goes to show that the house where the accused No.1 and deceased were staying is a small home and as per accused No.1, his mother and brother already left the village and went to Bengaluru on 07.07.2017 itself. His father is also suffering from paralysis and he was out of the house and accused No.1 alone committed the offence of murder by throttling and hanging her. The postmortem report reveals that the deceased died due to homicidal hanging. The statement of the witnesses clearly goes to show that accused No.1 i.e Krishna and other family members committed the offences. Throughout the statements, the charge sheet material, there are no eye witnesses for the alleged offences and none of the witnesses have spoken anything about accused Nos.2 to 7, who were also residing in the same house. They actively participated in the commission of the offences under Sections 302, 201 to attract Section 34 of IPC.
7. The trial Court while passing the order has observed that as per the statement of witnesses, accused No.1 and other accused have committed the offences. But the Investigating Officer, according to the statement of all the witnesses and investigation, has bifurcated the charge against accused No.1 and the other accused. The charge sheet also reveals that accused No.1 alone committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Section 34 of IPC would attract only for the purpose of Section 498A but not for Sections 302 and 201 of IPC as mentioned by the Investigating Officer. For the remaining accused, it was mentioned only Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 and Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial Court considering the entire material has held that on record none of the witnesses stated anything about all the accused persons residing at the same house as earlier that the incident or the alleged murder that has been committed by them. It is well settled for the purpose of framing of charge that the Court does not require to go in detail on merits of the case. However, there must be material placed on record which is sufficient to frame the charges against each of the accused as per Section 220 of Cr.PC. Therefore, when the charge sheet does not speaks about the statement made by the witnesses, in respect of participation of the other accused especially these petitioners with accused No.1., the trial Court cannot frame charges for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC against these petitioners. Therefore, the trial court committed error in holding that all the accused persons have committed the offences and participated under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, which is not correct and is liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The order dated 01.10.2018 which is under challenge is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court to frame appropriate charges against the accused as per the materials available on record and proceed for the trial. However, if any evidence is found during the trial, the trial Court shall include any charges or add charges or alter the charges as per Section 216 of Cr.PC prior to passing of the Judgment in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the accused.
9. In view of disposal of the revision petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY