IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18H DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.226 /2019 BETWEEN:
Shivashankar M S/o. M.Subramanya, Aged about 27 years, R/at No. 3544, 4th Cross, 9th Main, Kaverinagar, BSK II Stage, Bengaluru–560070. ...Petitioner (By Sri. Ranganath Reddy R, Advocate) AND:
State by The Station House Officer, Banashankari Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri. M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.282/2018 (C.C.No.32452/2018) registered by Banashankari Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking his release on bail in Crime No.282/2018 of Banashankari Police Station (C.C.No.32452/2018 on the file of the learned III Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore) for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. I have heard Sri.Ranganath Reddy R, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M. Divakar Maddur, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution are that the petitioner/accused No.1 got married the deceased-
Smt.Subhashini on 11.03.2016 at Chittor District, Andhra Pradesh. Thereafter, they started residing in Banashankari, Bengaluru and they were doing hotel business. It is further alleged that, sister and brother- in-law of petitioner/accused No.1 were also residing with the petitioner and deceased. They used to ill treat and to harass the deceased for demand of additional dowry and petitioner/accused No.1 was having illicit relationship with another woman. Because of ill- treatment and harassment caused by the petitioner/accused No.1, deceased committed suicide in the matrimonial home on 10.09.2018 and case has been registered against the petitioner/accused No.1 and other accused persons.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no other injury found over the body of the deceased except ligature mark, that itself goes to show that the petitioner has not ill-treated the deceased for demand of dowry. Earlier, a complaint was registered against the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 but now, in charge sheet name of accused No.3 has been dropped. He further submitted that though the complaint reveals that the case has been registered in Punganur police station but when documents have been summoned as to whether such case has been registered against the petitioner/accused No.1, it is learnt from the Punganur police station that no such case has been registered against the petitioner/accused No.1. He further submitted that soon before the death, no ill- treatment or harassment has been caused by the accused persons, in order to attract provisions of Sec. 113(B) of Indian Evidence Act, soon before the death, there must be ill-treatment and harassment. Charge sheet has already been filed. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the deceased was taking treatment for infertility. As, she could not get child, she has committed suicide. As such, there is no overt act alleged against the petitioner/accused No.1 from the complaint and he is ready to abide by the conditions and to offer surety and undertakes to cooperate with the investigating officer for investigation. On these grounds prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State vehemently argued and submitted that the parents of the deceased have paid dowry during the course of marriage and even they have produced receipts for having purchased gold ornaments along with the charge sheet. He further submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 along with other accused persons used to assault and to harass the deceased as she has not begotten child and the same was informed by the deceased to her mother over phone and panchayath was convened about six to eight times by the elders to resolve the dispute between the parties. A complaint was lodged against the accused before the Punganur police station before they coming to Bengaluru from Chittor. He further submitted that there is a presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act which is a dowry death. There are ample materials to connect the accused persons to the said crime. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. On plain reading of the complaint and other materials on record, it indicates that earlier, the name of accused No. 3 has been shown in the FIR but at the time of filing of charge sheet, accused No.3 has been dropped from the charge sheet. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint and other materials, dowry has been paid to the petitioner/accused No.1 and there was ill treatment and harassment to the deceased for demand of additional dowry and for gold ornaments.
In this regard panchayath was convened about six to eight times. Though, it is contended that the complaint was lodged before the Punganur police station but the same has not been produced. Merely because complaint has not been produced, it does not mean that panchayath was not convened to resolve the dispute between the parties. When there is a specific allegation against the accused persons with regard to the ill treatment and harassment, the contention of the learned counsel that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself as she has not begotten child inspite of spending more time with the petitioner/accused No.1 in the matrimonial home cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced the records to show that because of the infertility, she used to take treatment in the Sai Balaji Medicals and to disprove the case of the prosecution it was one of the evidence. But at this juncture without corroboration and substantive evidence, it cannot be accepted.
Under the said facts and circumstance, I feel that there is a prima facie material to connect the petitioner/accused No.1 for the said crime. There is no good grounds to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/-