IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5323 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SRI M.RAJESH S/O MUNIYAPPA @ BESTHARA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O NARASAPURRA VILLAGE TALUK & DISTRICT: KOLAR-563101 (BY SRI.M.R.NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE VEMGAL POLICE STATION, VEMGAL DISTRICT: KOLAR REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001 …PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.77/2018 (S.C.NO.89/2018) OF VEMGAL POLICE STATION, KOLAR DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 304B R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECITON 3, 4 OF D.P.ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The present petition is filed by accused No.1 seeking his enlargement on bail in Crime No.77/2018 of the respondent police station (SC No.89/2018) who has been charge sheeted as accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that the deceased Asha, daughter of the complainant - CW1 was married to the present petitioner (accused No.1) on 18.06.2017, at which time, some gold ornaments and cash was given as dowry. After the marriage, the husband and in-laws of the deceased who are the accused in the case were pestering the deceased and harassing her demanding further dowry to be brought from her parents house. Due to the unbearable cruelty, the deceased, on 04.03.2018 consumed the pesticide and died on 06.03.2018 while under treatment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations of the alleged demand for dowry is primarily against accused Nos.2 and 3 who have already been enlarged on bail by the Court. There are no allegations of overt-act against the accused. Further, for the reasons best known to it, the Investigating Officer suppressed the statement shown to have been given by the deceased at the earliest point of time.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader while reiterating the contentions taken up by him in the statement of objections stated that CWs.11, 13 and 14 are the eye witnesses to the alleged incident who have stated about the deceased consuming poison and also cruelty meted to her by the accused. He also submitted that soon prior to her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty, as such, the unnatural death squarely attracted Section 304B of IPC.
5. A reading of the complaint shown to have been lodged by none else than the father of the deceased, at this stage, prima facie go to show that the allegations about demand for dowry has not been confined to accused No.1, but also made against accused Nos.2 and 3. Admittedly, those accused Nos.2 and 3 are already said to have been enlarged on bail.
6. The very complaint of the complainant also says that when he visited his daughter and enquired her who was under treatment in the hospital, he came to know that due to the alleged threat meted to her by the husband, she has given a false information before the police, when infact she was ill-treated by her husband. If the said contention of the complainant is taken on its facial value, it expects the existence of the statement shown to have been given by none else than the deceased before the police, much earlier, her parents visited her in the hospital. There is no whisper from the prosecution side about the existence of any such statement given by the deceased before the Police Officer.
7. On the other hand, the respondent contends that CWs.11, 13 and 14 are the eye witnesses to the incident and they are also the independent witnesses.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader failed to convince the Court as to on what basis he had concluded that CWs.11, 13 and 14 are the eye witnesses to the incident and also as to which particular incident? Whether the CW 11, 13 and 14 were the eye witnesses to the alleged cruelty said to have been meted to the deceased, or to the alleged incident of she consuming poison. Though the learned High Court Government Pleader says that they are the eye witnesses to the act of the deceased consuming poison, but, he fails to produce in that regard the statement said to have been recorded by the Investigating Agency to show that the deceased had consumed poison. Thus, a doubt arises at this stage, because the complainant has made specific allegations that the deceased was administered the poison.
9. In addition to the above, it also cannot be ignored of the fact that a reading of the statement shown to have been given by CWs.11, 13 and 14 before the Investigating Officer says that the incident of deceased taking poison has taken place.
10. However, learned High Court Government Pleader could not able to convince that the said statement of CWs.11, 13 and 14, go to show that they have witnessed the deceased consuming poison.
However, the said aspect of interpretation of their statement would be a subject matter of trial followed by the argument if any thereafter. Suffice it to say that the allegation though shown to have been made by the parents of the deceased are with respect to demand for dowry said to have been made by the accused, but, whether such alleged demand was a fact and can that demand be considered as ‘subjecting the deceased to cruelty soon prior to her death’, are the aspects which are to be considered in detail in the trial. As such, considering the length of the judicial custody in which the accused is said to have been already undergone and also the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that by imposing reasonable conditions, the accused be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The petition is allowed in part. The petitioner be enlarged on bail in Crime No. Crime No.77/2018 (SC No.89/2018) pending on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 304B r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the following conditions.
(i) The petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for likesum with proof of their address and to the satisfaction of the enlarging Court.
(ii) The petitioner to give in writing about the change in his address, if any, to the Investigating Officer as and when such change occurs and obtain acknowledgement in that regard.
(iii) The accused shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing.
(iv) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses and documents.
Sd/- JUDGE GH