IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.505 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
JAGADEESH, S/O. DODDA KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. NAGADASANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-561 203. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE] AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY RAJANUJUNTE P.S., REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENT [BY SRI. HONNAPPA, HCGP] * * * THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2019 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA IN S.C. NO.10031/2017 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This criminal revision petition is filed by the accused praying to set aside the Order dated 05.03.2019 passed in S.C. No.10031/2017 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Doddaballapura, wherein his application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. came to be dismissed.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent/State.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that;
The marriage of the deceased by name Swetha was performed with the complainant about 10 years prior to the incident. The accused was having an illicit relationship with the deceased. Coming to know about the same, the complainant and the villagers had advised the accused not to pressurize the deceased. However, the accused continued to harass the deceased and started having conversation with the deceased over phone. When the same was enquired by the complainant, the deceased informed him that the accused used to pressurize her that she should leave her husband and start living with him, otherwise she has to go and die. Unable to tolerate the pressure and at the instigation of the accused, the deceased committed suicide on 20.04.2016 by hanging.
Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. After committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the accused filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., seeking discharge from the case. To the said application, the prosecution filed its objections. The learned Sessions Judge by an Order dated 05.03.2019 rejected the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., which is under challenge in this revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that even if the entire allegations are taken on its face value, then the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are not attracted. He would submit that the material on record is not sufficient to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC. He submits that to constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate to compel suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these would mitigate against his indictment. Hence, he submits that the accused is entitled for discharge. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition.
Per contra, the learned HCGP contended that there is ample material on record to frame charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC., the statement of the witnesses would disclose that the accused was constantly pressurizing and harassing the deceased and in view of the said harassment and abetment, she has committed suicide and therefore, he seeks to dismiss the petition.
5. I have perused the charge-sheet material and also the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The complaint is lodged by the husband of the deceased. He has stated that the accused was having an illicit relationship with the deceased and in this regard, he had complained to the police. The villagers had advised the accused and resolved the dispute. Thereafter, the complainant and the deceased were living harmoniously. However, the accused was pressurizing the deceased by making phone calls and he was pressurizing her to leave her husband and to come and live with him. It is further stated that the deceased was telling the complainant that if she does not leave the complainant and live with the accused, then she should go and die. In the complaint it is further stated that on the date of the incident, there was a call from the accused from his mobile phone.
6. The perusal of the statements of P.Ws.1 to 5 and 7 would also disclose that the accused was constantly harassing the deceased and due to the said reasons, the deceased committed suicide. At this stage, it cannot be said that there is no proximity or that the accused was not the cause for the deceased to commit suicide. The ingredients of ‘abetment’ cannot be said to be absent. At this stage, there is a prima face case against the accused for having committed an offence under Section 306 of IPC. There is no illegality in the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.
It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the disposal of this revision petition.
Sd/- JUDGE Ksm*