IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1355/2015 BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE, BENGALURU-560 016. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. THEJESH P. HCGP.) AND 1. SMT SAVITHA W/O VARADARAJU @ RAJU, AGED 30 YEARS.
2. VARADARAJU @ RAJU S/O LATE D.H.MAYANNA, AGED 35 YEARS, R1 & R2 ARE R/AT NO.16/17, 1ST CROSS, J.S.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 096.
3. RAJAGOPAL @ RAJU @ VENUGOPAL, S/O LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.1187/47, 4TH MAIN ROAD, M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA,BENGALURU-560 040.
4. VIJI @ POOJA @ VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O ANAND KUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.19, 2ND CROSS, R.G.NAGARA, LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560 058.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. N.PADMAVATHI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:31.07.2015 PASSED BY THE XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE CITY (CCH-46) IN S.C.NO.11/2015 AND DIRECT THE COURT BELOW TO TRY THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NO.4 TO 7 FOR THE OFFENCES TO WHICH THEY HAVE CHARGED SHEETED.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and learned counsel Smt.N.Padmavathi, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4, who have been arraigned as accused Nos.4 to 7.
2. The factual matrix of this petition is as under:
The marriage of the deceased Monisha was performed with the accused Arunkumar as per the customs prevailed in the Society on 15.05.2011. Due to the marriage of the deceased her parents incurred an expenditure of approximately Rs.10.00 lakhs. During her marriage the dowry in terms of 300 grams of gold ornaments were said to be given by her parents. In addition to that 200 grams of gold items were given to Arun Kumar who is bridegroom. Subsequent to her marriage with the said Arun Kumar, the deceased as well as her husband settled down in matrimonial home. While she was residing in her matrimonial home all the accused have been abused her in filthy language and also extended physical and mental harassment to her, the accused were insisting her to bring dowry in terms of car and also get constructed three storied building. As regards the accused demanded her to bring car from her parental house as well as assist to construct three storied building, the accused persons refused to send her to her parental house when the mother of deceased along with another woman came to the house of the accused persons. Because of that, the deceased Monisha went inside the room of the house of her husband and locked it from inside and committed suicide. As narrated, in the complaint, the accused were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B), 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Subsequent to that the investigation has been done by the Investigating Officer thoroughly by recording the statement of witnesses so also conducted mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and laid the charge sheet. The Trial Court in S.C. No.11/2015 has been heard on charge and rendered an order on 31.07.2015, whereby the charge came to be framed against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences which are stated in the charge sheet, but the charges which are leveled against the respondent No.4 to 7 are discharged and they are respondents No.1 to 4 herein.
4. The learned HCGP for the state has taken me through the averments made in the complaint so also the allegations against the respondents No.4 to 7. These accused, physically as also mentally harassed the deceased and they have also abused her in filthy language. The same has been levelled in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer. The Trial Court has considered the statement of the witnesses and so also mahazar said to be conducted by the Investigating Officer in the presence of Panch witnesses wherein no ingredients have been find place even for the offence punishable under Section 109 of IPC as this observation made in the impugned order. Therefore, the charges which are leveled against accused No.4 to 7 being arraigned as respondent No.1 to 4 does not attract for framing of charges against them relating to the offences punishable under section 498(A) 304(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC besides Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. But the Trial Court has held, it is based upon the averments made in the complaint and so also leveled the charges against the accused. Relating to that, statement has been recorded by the Investigating Officer who has come to the conclusion that the charges will be framed against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) 306 of IPC besides Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) and 304(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC besides Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, but on a cursory glance of the complaint placed in the charge sheet which consisted the statement of witnesses so also mahazar said to be conducted, the trial court has found that the prosecution charge sheeted against the accused No.1 to 3 and also found offences on 498(A) 306 of IPC besides Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, it is extended to these accused Nos. 4 to 7 also. Whereas, the learned HCGP for the State in this petition has taken me through the allegations made in the charge sheet laid against the accused to show that there are sufficient materials collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation even to the extent of Section 498(A) and 306 of IPC besides Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and relating to accused Nos.4 to 7 in the charge sheet but the trial court has discharged the aforesaid accused Nos.4 to 7 even with regard to the aforesaid offences. Therefore, in this petition it is required to be intervened relating to discharge of accused Nos.4 to 7 under Sections 498(A) and 306 of IPC besides Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. As narrated, during the marriage of the deceased her parents spent considerable amount in terms of gold items and so also accused demanded her additional dowry in terms of car from her parental house and so also demanded her assist through her parents for construction of three storied building to be provided from her parents. When the deceased did not fulfill the demand made by the accused they abused her in filthy language so also extended physical and mental harassment. Due to that harassment in the hands of accused, she has committed suicide by hanging in the house of her husband. The same has been levelled in the charge sheet. These are the contentions taken by the learned HCGP for the State and seeking to allow the petition and set aside the judgment in S.C.No.11/2015 dated 31.07.2015.
6. Per contra, learned counsel namely Smt.N.Padmavathi, appearing for respondents Nos.1 to 4, who have been arraigned as accused Nos.4 to 7 in charge sheet submits that the Investigation Officer during the course of investigation has investigated thoroughly by conducting mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses, so also conducted inquest proceedings by the competent authority as the death occurred within seven years from the date of her marriage. But the Trial Court in S.C. No.11/2015 has gone through the entire material available on record and framed charges against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 of IPC, besides Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, merely because there are materials against the accused for the offences which are stated in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer, but there is no sufficient materials against accused Nos.4 to 7, as required to be facing of trial. But the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the Investigating Officer has not been secured enough material in respect of accused Nos.4 to 7 to act against the remaining accused in regard to the offences under Sections 498(A), 306 of IPC besides Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. The Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion in S.C.No.11/2015 relating to accused Nos.4 to 7 as there are no sufficient materials against them for facing of trial. Therefore intervention in the impugned order passed by the trial court in S.C.No.11/2015 dated 31.07.2015 does not arise as it relates to accused Nos.4 to 7. Accordingly, the respondents’ counsel seeks for dismissal of the criminal revision petition preferred by the State questioning the discharge of accused Nos.4 to 7 for the aforesaid offences.
7. Having regard to the back drop of the contentions as taken by the learned HCGP for the State so also counter made by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 as arraigned in the charge sheet as accused Nos. 4 to 7 it is relevant to refer that the marriage of the deceased Monisha was performed with the accused Arun Kumar as per the customs prevailed in the society on 15.05.2011. During her marriage her parents had provided dowry in terms of gold jewellery, in addition to that 200 grams gold were given to the bridegroom. Subsequent to her marriage with him she had been in her matrimonial home. While she was residing in the house of her husband, all the accused were abusing her in filthy language and also given physical and mental harassment and insisting her to bring additional dowry in terms of car and also to get constructed three storied building. But it is an allegation in the charge sheet laid by the Investigation Officer. However the Investigating Officer has recorded statement of witnesses during the course of the investigation, wherein it is cited as CW1 to DW29. There is no dispute that, based upon the complaint, Crime No.390/2014 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B), 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC besides Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The deceased Monisha was given in marriage to accused No.1. Her marriage was performed as per the customs prevailed in the society and the same has been revealed in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer against the accused but accused Nos.4 to 7 are said to be the distant relatives. During investigation, the Investigating Officer stated that they were also given physical and mental harassment to the deceased through her husband. But the Trial Court in S.C.No.11/2015 heard on charge and discharged accused Nos.4 to 7 in its order dated 31.07.2015 as there are no ingredients placed against these accused to frame charges and for facing of trial. Therefore, they have been discharged from the alleged offences even to the extent of offences under Sections 498(A), 306 of IPC besides Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. There is no dispute about the deceased Monisha committing suicide in the house of her husband by hanging with means of veil. But these accused Nos.4 to 7 were also charge sheeted. Accused No.1 is said to be the husband of Monisha, accused Nos.2 and 3 are in-laws of the deceased. Accordingly they found guilty, it is the duty cast upon the prosecution to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubts in order to convict accused persons. But respondent Nos.1 to 4, i.e., accused Nos. 4 to 7 are the distant relatives. Therefore, the Trial Court has assessed the entire materials available on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that there are no materials against the accused Nos.4 to 7 in order to frame charges and for facing of trial. Therefore, in this revision petition, I deem it proper to state that there is no justification in the submission of the learned HCGP for the State seeking intervention of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in S.C.No.11/2015 dated 31.07.2015 discharging accused Nos.4 to 7 for the offences which is incorporated in the operative portion of the order. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Revision Petition deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
:ORDER:
The criminal revision petition preferred by the State is hereby rejected. Consequently, the order passed by the trial court in S.C.No.11/2015 dated 31.07.2015 in respect of accused Nos.4 to 7 being arraigned as respondents No.1 to 4 herein for discharge is confirmed. It is made clear that the observation made therein should not influence the mind of the trial court in S.C.No.11/2015, where the accused Nos.1 to 3 are requires to facing of trial for the offences as stated supra.
Registry of this Court is directed to forward the copy of this order, along with entire records forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE KLY/