Karnataka High Court
K Basavapurna Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 August, 2009
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
AGE:
GCC:
R/AT: V V _
TQ. & DIST: RA,IC%ffUR... I _
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 14*" DAY OF AUGUST',.2A5O'b§'wV.',j',:=: .
BEFORE _
THE HON'BLE MR.3uSTICE'».,,JA:w.AO 'R_AH.I:I'\>'i
CRIMINAL PETITI«'3_N--.._f\lO. i6..4éI2Oo'S"
BETWEEN:
K. BASAVAPURNA RAO, _
58 YEARS,
AGRICULTURE V
MASLAO_OOOT. CAMP,
PETITIONER
(By Sri.Batu}b.a!'i:-P{§_,,.DeI--:IEa"I«IEI'Ii:,-- 'Q:-'§VIniC%IIs--Curiae), Advocate)
AND:
1.
TH E STATE 'OE'T<;'AR"NATAKA,
BYSHO,' I '~
QBY KAMPILI. POLICE STATION,
._':__'TQ_:_,1HQSPET,'BEST: BELLARY.
~ INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KA~MP.L_I POLICE STATION,
'KAM PLI:,_
HOSPET, OIST: BELLARY.
TH'E"SuB~INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
_ 'KAMPLI POLICE STATION,
KAMPLI,
TQ: HOSPET, DISST: BELLARY.
SRI. K. VENKATESHWARA RAO,
5\%
SKDSRLK.POORNACHANDRARAO,
26 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,
RNDDEVASAMUDRA,
HOSPETTALUK.
5. SR1. K. KISHORE, ---- -
S/O SHRI.K. POORNACHANDRA RAG, ' '
31 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, '
R/O DE'./ASAMUDRA CAMP, I
HOSPET TALUK.
6. SMT. M. LAKSHMI, " _
W/O SRIESUBRAMAESHWARA' RAO, - -'
28 YEARS, HOUSE_WIFE,_--------
R/O DEVASAMUDRA-._CAMP,
HOSPET TALUK. ' A
'RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.P.H. Gotkhindi, H'C"GP1§or:'R'f:--_toR3,,' Sri.Y. Lakshmiikanth'ReCi--.dy}a'r1d "
Sri.R. Nagendra..__N'ai.d'«u," Aidy'; »Ffo;*:" to R6) T,hi's'ViC'ri.fn'inai"'?p'éti_t'i'Qn' is iiiéd u/s 482 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the"o..rde,r"*da'ted -24.3.2005 appeased by the learned WPri'ncip'a,l."Qi.St'.'-~.__1&«.Sessions Judge, Beliary, in s.c.No.s2/1.993. and 'aiioyir the application filed u/5 173(8) Cr.P.C-.--. and "i"eferV'the- matter for fresh investigation or ,_vfurt_he,r inveVstiga'ti'on....b.V an independent agency or by poiice as,o"pine'd:' bythis Court in W.P.S893/2OO1. : This"-«piVeti't'ivo:n coming on for hearing this day, the court made the t'oA!'i_o.v'vi ng:
'k ,"A5 ORDER _ The petitioner is unfortunate father who lodged A._«'coVn"spi'Aainant at the responde_nt~po|ice station informing of
-»the sad demise of his daughter white iiving in matrimony 3537/ V the pgoiice, with her husband. The report was received and registered as FIR initiaily for offence punishabie under section 498A IPC and 3048 regarding unhaturai death of his dgaiighter Lakshmi. The poiice officers after investigating__fi'i'ed[c.h:a5rge'= _ sheet against husband and others for offe.n«c.e':".po'ni:shai:ii'e under section 498A IPC but did not;g'_fiie:.aghv the aiieged overt acts of theaccused".ih"'comm'iV'ttin:g.for; murder. The case was further Vixnqitiired irito despite his repeated and fervent 're'oue:.§t a.c_ti_o'n_tai<en. He was, therefore, upset and appl.iei3_ itodfhis e't:~t{r't~i'.;._», --W.P.S893/1991 complaining of 4i'r§;a.ctio.n*.goh the Investigation Officer 'in cohidoct-i.rig~iin'ves»ti_g~ataoh and on the part of the State in hieihigiisiileht to the inaction on the part of *-court considered the grievance of the pe'tAit'ioner_'%"'ir._ 7'wP.5893/1991 and did appreciate the 'xgrievanr:vue*;.ahd it aiiowed the petition and directed the trial A ":i_co.LViVrt"~«i3efore whom charge sheet was fiied, to consider the 'v"=..__":"'apg§3iicatioh of petitioner fiied Ll/S 173(8) Cr.P.C. for reference to any other Investigation agency iike C81. The §wQ/ 4 direction of this court was to require the trial court to bestow its serious concern to the nature of aliegatioris-"'."--a.f>iade by the complainant, examine the nature of done and after it is noticed that the investigation' was the right direction or that the serious"aiiggAati.;onis"rnaVci'e* the compiainant regarding death ofh:'sV_A.dauiov§_jtAer. susoicions sounded by him agaii"nst the..si'sté_r--Vih;ia'w' and others was not progevriyghéinveast'ioat4ed;-then'to 'direct the investigation by indeoende_n't The said direction of this Sessions Court dealiiéiégii at such direction of this court,._ .théW;;gssioii«s'_"-court in a casuai manner has disposediiefi the"r--aVQ'p'l'ic.ati----oinV. not referring the matter to ooiice/Emiestigation agency.
'' i3'e:ti*:.at as it may, what is noticed is the serious a!.l'eg'ation.Aare_ made by the complainant: viz., That;_ the marriage of his daughter Lakshmi was A "fiertormed with the I~accused on 30.5.1990. During marriage he was comoeiied to give cash of Rs.15,000/- and several goid ornaments. Despite receigot of said dowry, the §,Ce/ 5 accused are aileged to have iriduiged in deliberate crueity and then they compeiied him to give 5 acres of--"'i.and. Accordingly, the compiainant gave land to even then the greed of the accused was not I--accused again drove back the decea'sed"._La.i<sh'rn_i_ ito-nheis'. parental house demanding Rs.V2OOOiG'Q/i?'~_a.s add_itiona'.l to purchase dairy farm. The corhpiainvhantVcogii'i:dVVéV'no'tmoi)!ige it such a request. That gave rigse"tid_:"se"r'ious ret'a'iia"ti0n from the accused and on 12;12.90-,.iEw'ith.i:ri---fsigé'vnwonths of the marriage, Lai<s_h.rnj: was idorieto ' I
45." """ circiiiinstagnces other death cleariy indicate severai n1_yst_erio.us'«c'ii«rcunfis--t,an.ces; The close reiatives of the compiainant"accornpaAn--,i_ed~~--"him and found to their dismay ~'"~,t_he of was mutiiated with ante--mortem W.ign§uries_"v._;"i"h'i~s:Vreveiation in the postmortem report and invegsitigatgioniIreveaied that death was neither suicidai nor ".acciden~taIj_but was hornicidai. Much against such serious A "ii.ai!iega't.ions, the investigation Officer fiied charge sheet only offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 149, £203, 3048 r/w section 498A IPC. The complainant's grievance is (9i,Q2/ (1 that if the medical evidence and the statement of witnesses are considered, it speaks for itself that Lakshmi died a homicidal death and the accused were expected to charge for offence 1.1/5 302 IPC. To Investigation Officer invoked charge; I
5. The learned Trial Judge"-toiifiihomii"t--hiS..'Co.tirifhjédig directed reconsideration of Ith:e'~...g_appi'i'Cationif the " I petitioner, despite noticing thei.~--sxag'i'd«.a'l.l,¢9atio'n,_op.ihed that the Investigation OfficeVr""l':ag-taigéiniiiin.tob,':¢:o:n'sideration all the statement of wivtniessges iogicai conclusion and the leveled was only section'304_--BAVI'i5'--ijl--«.,__:"'It "i«_s»_"'qd__it--eobvious, learned trial Jiudge did not ifregaiisef.a:ctjt.hat main grievance of the compélgaiiiant was that "material evidence which was also-
aAv«ai_igai'ele:"'apart._._from what was collected by the prosecution, there vvas7a.,dd~i.tio'nal incriminating material available which _ establishes -the charge against the accused for offence u/s .Vg3O2,s.IPC';"'.. In other words, the partisan attitude of the e._Investigation Officer was the main grievance. Ignoring incriminating evidenceg. 'ng investigation was the serious 1' allegation made. It is for this reason, this court also opined that on consideration of nature of aiiegations, it--.__was necessary to direct the trial court to consid"eVr"-fresh investigation by C81, which has not been done.-'..':.:''
6. I am satisfied that the"lleamed'.Sessi'o'r_usV:Judge' has proceeded on the premise consider the material avaiiable't.o"'decide wyheithjerilchyarge U/S V' 302 IPC could be retai:i1.ed. y.Thatv.fw'a's._._notI ifitent and purport of mandate issued.i_by't--hi"s:' the writ petition referred to abo,v«e.:V *_~It isjla clear -ca'sl'e'_jv.of'vi:olation of mandate issued "co:nse'quen_t"t'oVwhich the petitioner has been rendered' rerr':e:diV|e~s.si.i'--~ __{7} I am. satisfied that the petitioner has made out a .e'><ercise of jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and I set the iearned Sessions Judge, Bellary, in _ s.c."ixio.5'2/193"91, dated 24.3.2005. I direct that the 1"
..,.Vi'es.ppndVe'nt--State to refer the compiaint submitted by the i'~__'peVt'iti'oner for further detailed inquiry by the COD and to 'submit a report about aliegation of homicidal death of 3&5 deceased Lakshmi. It is further noticed that the sessions Case pending before the sessions court is stayed in these proceedings consequent to which the triai is pending"-froni the year 1991. It is regrettabie that petition has been pending and the accusedyhayeifenjoye-d_A it the benefit of stay. Therefore, be passed is to direct the sessions"cou--rt to gcogrnrnenc-e"'the--..g trial and in the mean whiie, itofidirect the to conduct' further investigation fiielitstire._po%t_as avvireport under section 173(8) of cr.p.c-;- f.i'_'Vis'uc_.ii.:iV"'a./,:\".('e_iaort indicts the petitioner--acc;us'e';ia:i1.'foripangy'-rotheir"--o*ffe_nce apart for which ' they have__ Sessions Eudge is directed to reframeithge icha'rge"i.f<;r4th_e'offence and continue triai. For thisggpurpose '-the' '1CO'V'D is granted at first instance four compiete investigation and submit report fro-rn.th'e:"'d.ate.i'VV'ef' receipt of this order. the circumstances, the petition is aiiowed. is" respondent--State is directed to hand«over "'i-nyestigation/FER to COD to inquire into the aiiegation of "'"homicidai death of Lakshmi and submit its report within a 332/ 9 period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
In the mean time, the trial court is directed"t'e..'_s~ect::;:e'= _ presence of the accused and fix a date for fraVm.irig.,c'hargAe, v. already not framed, giving the date after.
9. I place theilrefer-i_tiessV1' e.ff»or't.r_and professional service rendered__by ci3r'ia'ei_----§3ri.Bahubaii A. Danwadi, and Rs'.:'3Gi30/~. The Registry is directed to en'Su--re;"jthat*;,;:i"ie"'h,o'norari'Li:*n"4 is paid from the funds of the State'; ' ' '':?.L}b''+*_ Sd/-
JUDGE