IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.985/2014 BETWEEN:
State by Channarayapatna Rural Police-573 116. .. PETITIONER (By Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP) AND:
1. Govindaraju S/o Sri Moodlaiah Aged about 31 years Caste: Scheduled Caste R/at Malenahalli Village Dandiganahalli Hobli Channarayapatna Taluk Present R/at Channigaraya Layout Kote Channarayapatna Town-573 116.
2. Smt Sumithra W/o Shankara Aged about 28 years Occ: Maid Servant Chamundeshwari Nagar 5th Cross, Laggere Bangalore-560 058. .. RESPONDENTS (By Sri H C Harish Kumar, Adv - absent) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the Court of Fast Track and Addl. Sessions Judge, Channarayapatna in S.C.No.211 of 2013 by allowing the application filed by the prosecution state under Section 319 of CR.P.C.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned HCGP appearing for the revision petitioner-complainant on admission.
2. Respondents and learned Counsel for the respondents, though served, have remained absent.
3. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the Court of Fast Track and Additional Sessions Judge, Channarayapatna in S.C. No.211/2013.
4. The prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court praying to summon one Sumitra and Govinda Raju alleging that they are also involved in the alleged offence. The trial Court heard on the said application and ultimately, rejected the same.
4. Learned HCGP during the course of the arguments made submission that while recording the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.1 made reference and deposed about involvement of Sumitra and Govinda Raju in the said incident. In view of the evidence of P.W.1, the prosecution filed the said application before the trial Court. Hence, he submitted that allowing the application and summoning those two persons as accused persons is necessary and the prosecution has made out the case for allowing such application.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the revision petition and also perused the order of the trial Court which is challenged in the petition.
6. Looking to the reasons adopted by the trial Court, it goes to show that the incident took place on 15.11.2012, on which date, the deceased Latha said to have committed suicide by pouring kerosene and she died on 19.11.2012 in the hospital at about 11.00 a.m. and the complaint was lodged at about 11.00 p.m. There was gap of 12 hours to realize the facts. The materials also go to show that, firstly, the case was registered as UDR No.20/2012 under section 174-C of Cr.P.C. Again on 1.12.2012, the complainant lodged another complaint naming the accused and also Sumitra and Govinda Raju that they are the real cause for the death of Latha.
7. Perused the evidence of P.W.1, who has been examined before the trial Court and himself is the complainant in the case. In the original complaint, there is no mention about involvement of Sumitra and Govinda Raju in the incident. Even, in the further statement also, there is no such mention about their involvement. After lapse of 16 days and when P.W.1 deposed before the Court about involvement of Sumitra and Govinda Raju, the prosecution immediately filed such an application.
8. Looking to the order of the trial Court, there are sound reasoning and the trial Court has taken all the aspects into consideration while passing the order on the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to show that there is prima facie materials for summoning the aforesaid persons, but the prosecution must also show that there is much more material to implead the persons named in the said application. The said aspect is also taken into consideration by the trial Court. I do not find any illegality in the order of the trial Court.
Accordingly, the revision petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE Cs/-