IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.704/2016 C/w.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.348/2016 CRL.R.P. NO.704/2016 BETWEEN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIVEKA NAGARA POLICE BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 047.
(BY SRI THEJESH P, HCGP) AND 1. MR. NAREN RAUNIYAR S/O NANDA KISHORE RAUNIYAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT 37, 21ST CROSS, ...PETITIONER SRIRAMA TEMPLE ROAD, EJIPURA, VIVEKANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 047. (DELETED V/O DTD.28.11.2016) 2. SMT. RANI RAUNIYAR W/O NANDA KISHORE RAUNIYAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT 37, 21ST CROSS, SRIRAMA TEMPLE ROAD, EJIPURA, VIVEKANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 047.
3. MR. NANDA KISHORE RAUNIYAR S/O LATE LAKSHMI PRASAD RAUNIYAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT 37, 21ST CROSS, SRIRAMA TEMPLE ROAD, EJIPURA, VIVEKANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 047.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SAMPATH ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., BY THE STATE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2015 IN S.C. NO.1054/2014 PASSED BY THE XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A) AND 304(B) READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, IN SO FAR AS DISCHARGING THE RESPONDENTS.
CRL.R.P. NO.348/2016 BETWEEN SRI KRISHNA GOPAL GUPTA S/O SHANKAR PRASAD GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, ISMAIL PUR MANDAL, GEETHA PRESS POST, NEAR BAJARANGI OIL MILL GORAKPUR, UTTAR PRADESH PIN CODE-57313 (BY SRI C.N. RAJU, ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER AND 1 . STATE BY VIVEK NAGARA POLICE BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001 2 . SMT. RANI RAUNIYAR W/O NANDA KISHORE RAUNIYAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.37, 21ST CROSS, SRIRAMA TEMPLE ROAD, EJIPURA, VIVEKANAGARA, BANGALORE PIN CODE NO - 560047 3 . SRI NANDA KISHORE RAUNIYAR S/O LATE LAKSHMIPRASAD RAUNIYAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.37, 21ST CROSS, SRIRAMA TEMPLE ROAD, EJIPURA, VIVEKANAGARA, BANGALORE PIN CODE NO:560047 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SAMPATH ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., BY THE COMPLAINANT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2015 IN S.C. NO.1054/2014 OF VIVEK NAGARA POLICE BENGALURU (CR.NO.16/2014) AND DIRECT THE COURT BELOW TO FRAME CHARGE AGAINST RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 304(B), 498(A) READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THESE PETITIONS COMING FOR ADMISSION ON THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The State, as well as the complainant, respectively, have preferred these petitions against the order passed by the trial Court in S.C. No.1054/2014 partly allowing the application filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., seeking their discharge from the offences leveled against them under Sections 498(A), 304(B) r/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code besides Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The trial Court allowed the application in respect of accused Nos.2 and 3 and rejected in respect of accused No.1 and discharged accused Nos.2 and 3 from the offences leveled against them in the charge- sheet laid by the Investigating Officer.
3. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-State in Crl.R.P. No.704/2016 and respondent No.1 in Crl.R.P. No.348/2016, so also the learned counsel Sri C.N. Raju, for the petitioner in Crl.R.P. No.348/2016 and the learned counsel namely Sri Sampath Anand Shetty for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in both the petitions.
4. The factual matrix of these petitions are as under:
It was stated in the application filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 before the trial Court that the deceased Ashitha was the wife of accused No.1 and their marriage was performed on 27.06.2007 at Katmandu of Nepal. Subsequent to marriage, Ashitha started living with her husband at Bangalore and after 5½ years of marriage they were blessed with a son namely Arav. Accused Nos.2 and 3 said to be her in-laws admittedly they are the permanent abode of Katmandu of Nepal. The deceased Ashitha died on 21.01.2014 at about 10.00 p.m., by committing suicide by hanging herself in the house of her husband. Due to the death of the deceased, her father who is the petitioner in Crl.R.P. No.348/2016 filed a complaint before the respondent- police on 23.01.2014 at about 1.30 p.m., Subsequent to filing of the complaint a case in Crime No.16/2015 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) read with 34 of IPC against these accused Nos.1 to 3 and the investigation was taken up by the Investigating Officer. During investigation, the Investigating Officer conducted Mahazars in the presence of Panch Witnesses and recorded the statement of witnesses. Since, the wife of Accused No.1 committed suicide within a span of seven years of her marriage, Inquest Mahazar has been conducted by the Competent Authority. Initially the case was registered in UDR No.4/2014 and proceeded with the case for investigation as contemplated under Section1 174 of Cr.P.C. During the proceedings the Competent Authority recorded the statement of witnesses. The UDR came to be registered based upon the information given by the informant. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer has investigated the case thoroughly and laid the charge-sheet against accused in C.C.No.52586/2014 which arose in Crime No.16/2014 for the aforesaid offences. Subsequently, Committal Court committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial, accordingly a case in S.C. No.1054/2014 was registered wherein the accused have to face the trial. During the course of facing of trial by accused, accused have filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., seeking for their discharge from the offences leveled against them. The application came to be allowed in part and accused Nos.2 and 3 were discharged from the alleged offences and the application in respect accused No.1 came to be rejected. The same has been reveals in the impugned order passed on the application by the trial Court in S.C.No.1054/2014.
5. The Court below has gone through the entire materials available on record including the charge-sheet laid against the accused. There is no dispute about the deceased committing suicide in the house of her husband by hanging herself by means of veil to the ceiling fan in the room on 21.01.2014 at around 10.30 a.m. Also there is no dispute that the FIR said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer and then proceeded with the case for investigation. But the FIR came to be registered on 23.01.2014 at about 1.30 p.m. There is also no dispute that the deceased was separately living with her husband at Bangalore and they were blessed with a son after 5½ years of marriage and accused Nos.2 and 3, said to be her in-laws, were permanent abode of Katmandu of Nepal as it is submitted by the learned counsel Sri C.N. Raju appearing for the complainant. However, the learned counsel Sri Sampath Anand Shetty for accused- respondent Nos.2 and 3 fairly submits that accused Nos.2 and 3 said to be the in-laws of the deceased and the parents of accused No.1 had come to Bangalore on the previous day of the incident i.e. on 20.01.2014 for the purpose of attending the first birthday celebration of their grand son Arav. The allegations made against these accused are that there was altercation took place among the accused persons and the deceased thereafter committed suicide by hanging herself by means of veil in the house of her husband. The complainant said to be the father of the deceased has given the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which reveals that he filed a complaint on 23.01.2014, though the incident has been taken place on 21.01.2010 i.e. after three days of the incident. The delay has to be explained by the prosecution in acceptable manner as to why the delay occurred in recording FIR by the respondent-police and to proceed with the case against the accused. As the contention taken by the learned HCGP for the State that the delay has been caused due to parents of the deceased, who had to came from Uttar Pradesh to Bangalore and thereafter, the complaint came to be lodged before the respondent-police for initiating criminal proceedings against the accused.
6. At a cursory glance of the material available on record so also the substances which are incorporated in the complaint as well as in the FIR said to be recorded by the Investigating Officer, it is relevant to refer that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself by means of veil to the ceiling fan in the house of her husband. CW2-Seetalakshmi in her statement has stated that the deceased used to inform her that the husband of the deceased and her in-laws used to insist her to bring dowry in terms of cash in order to purchase a flat in Bangalore. These are the allegations made against the accused. But the trial Court before allowing the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., has made an observation that a close scrutiny of statements of CWs.1 and 2 made it clear that the incriminating material from the statement of all these witnesses cannot connect accused Nos.2 and 3 and accordingly accused Nos.2 and 3 were discharged from the offences leveled against them, as this observation made by the court below on consideration of their application.
7. The sister of the deceased in her statement before the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation has stated about the physical as well as mental harassment meted out to the deceased by accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 are none other than the in-laws of the deceased. These allegations made in the charge-sheet so also in the statements said to be given by the witnesses during the course of investigating, is a matter of trial and the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C., has to be decided only looking into the material which are secured by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. The Investigating Officer after thorough investigation of the case has laid the charge-sheet for the alleged offences. Based on information the case in UDR No.4/2014 came to be registered and based upon the UDR proceedings, the case has been investigated by the Competent Authority under the provisions of Section 174 of Cr.P.C., and material documents were collected during the course of initiating the UDR proceedings earlier to filing of the FIR. Based on the complaint filed by the father of the deceased the case has been proceeded and the investigation has been thoroughly done. The charge-sheet material, such as, the seizure Mahazar, material object i.e., the veil which was said to be used by the deceased at the time of committing suicide in the house of her husband, was placed by the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In criminal trials, it is the duty cast upon the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt to secure conviction. However, during the course of trial accused Nos.1 to 3 had filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., seeking for their discharge from the alleged offence and the said application came to be allowed in part and discharged accused Nos.2 and 3 from the offences leveled against them and rejected the application in respect of accused No.1.
8. These petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C. No.1054/2014 allowing the application filed in respect of accused Nos.2 and 3 filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The State has preferred criminal revision petition in Crl.R.P. No.704/2016, for operating the order in respect of discharging accused Nos.2 and 3 who are facing trial for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) and 304(B) of read with Section 34 of IPC, besides Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant said to be the father of the deceased has filed Crl.R.P. No.348/2016 under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., challenging the order discharging accused Nos.2 and 3 said to be in-laws of the deceased.
The learned counsel for the said petitioner contended that due to physical as well as mental harassment extended by these accused Nos.2 and 3 the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself by means of veil to the ceiling fan in the house of her husband and also contended that accused Nos.2 and 3 came from Katmandu of Nepal to Bangalore on 20.01.2014 for the purpose of attending the first birthday celebration of their grand son, as the deceased has given birth to a child after a period of 5 and ½ years of marriage. All these materials are found in the record. Therefore, it needs to be appreciated by a detailed discussion, which is only after trial faced by the accused persons and not at this stage.
9. The learned counsel namely Sri Sampath Anand Shetty, fairly submits that though the death was taken place within a span of seven years of marriage, it does not arise for looking to the detail material relating to the charges leveled against accused persons, since the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself by means of veil in the house of her husband. But the accused required to facing of trial before the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) of IPC, besides Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, it is appropriate to say by a detailed discussion with regard to the statements of witnesses so also the Mahazars said to be conducted by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation which is only after trial and so also on the evidence of prosecution. However, accused Nos.2 and 3 who are said to be the in-laws of the deceased are also regularly facing trial as it is alleged that they are involved in the offences in the charge-sheet, it is deemed proper to allow these petitions filed by the petitioner- State and so also the petitioner/complainant by challenging impugned order passed by the Court below for having discharging accused Nos.2 and 3. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Crl.R.P. No.704/2016 filed the State so also the Crl.R.P. No.348/2016 filed by the complainant – father of the deceased are hereby allowed. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the trial Court in S.C. No.1054/2014 on 22.12.2015 on the file of XLV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City allowing the application in part in respect of accused Nos.2 and 3 is hereby set aside.
Since it is the case of the year 2014 wherein the accused are required for facing of trial, it is deemed proper to issue direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
In view of the submission of the learned counsel Sri Sampath Anand Shetty for accused Nos.2 and 3 arraigned as respondents in these petitions, since accused Nos.2 and 3 are permanent abode of Katmandu of Nepal, it is directed that they may be exempted from appearing before the Trial Court on the dates of hearing fixed, whenever necessary application on valid grounds is filed.
The trial Court shall dispose of the Sessions Case as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observation made in these petitions.
Sd/- JUDGE SBS*