Karnataka High Court
Jaswant Raj M vs State Of Karnataka By The Station House ... on 10 June, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT _ Dated This The 10th Day; Qf.Ju;4¢tt2*eri9t r t BEFORE:=.__ % é ' it t Q THE HON'BLE MR.JU:'j"1g;E :3 Criminal Revisipn Between V A .4 V 1.
Sri Jaswant Rag' M. e Aged about :
S/0 Parasn3a1i';fJa:i_nv _:
2. Smt.VStush'ee1a'*I;,__ ._ Agegi abdu'tf*33 yea:r.s"A~.e_ --
W/oeeqasw--antefiajtM."»,__""= t t
3. Smt.Suki, Bai L _ 'ed. ab01it..,62'y*ears W-jio VP'arasma'1' 2 4 Sri Kumar Munoth A Agedv-.étbQutt'-40 years " S/*0 Paraisrri'al Jain All the petitioners are available V V' .. At NGA56, II Floor, Rama Iyengar Street '~ ff " V V Visveswarapuram Bc£nga}0re--560 004.
; Petitioners (By Sri Raghavendra for C.V.Nagesh, Adv) And State of Karnataka by the Station House Officer Central Police Station Bangalore.
(By Sri Vijayakumar MajagcC;i;coP)'ev. A . This Cr1.R.P. isfiled ,u._/_'s.39--7 r/vii--4001" Cr.P.C praying to reverse setV_Vas_ide'*.the order dated 27.06.2006 passed bythe P.rQ:';'»,:}FTC{~IX,"' Bangalore City, in S.C.No.376/2003. it This Revisior§:js~rPetiti-on_coming'on~for orders this day, the Court madethe__fo1'lowing:'*_ iint"QepER The 'to 4 herein are respectively acc1;;sed..N0s.4,. 1 in Sessions Case 376/2003 "the fiie of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Bangalore City, Bangalore (hereinafter C if . refeiiredyitoas the 'Trial Court' for short). x These petitioners and also one Parasmai Jain. Wflcie father of accused No.1 Bharath Kumar, accused No.4 Jaswanth Raj and husband of accused No.2 Smt.Sukhi Bai and father--in-law of accused No.5, '_--..~.<;'"*»-~-W Resfiogrfiientii Smt.Susheela came to be chargesheeted for tiiei under Sections 498A, 807, 309 and 34 of IPC. Before the charges :cou1dg.be4'--.fr'arned' all the said, accused No.3viz,_, Paifsrna1gJaiin;_:the f;i;tfiei~§ti'. in-law of the deceased died;-'..':lii.ereioi*eu. hearing both the sides on the T rial Court passed the ixriptigned holding that there' that the present petitioners" Nos.4, 5, 2 and 1, under Sections 498A, 3041-3, the offence under Section 302 aiidr:/W____.Section 34 of IPC and also under - V and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The of this order is challenged by all the accused nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the present revision.
3. Heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the impugned order, the complaint dated 26.10.2002 filed by accused No.4 Jaswanth Raj- I33:--..("~""~'-----I (petitioner No.1 herein), subsequent cornplaintg-d_ated 13.03.2003 filed by CW1 Sumermal, the fa7;1;i%ei}'V3'c§'{'e..£i=..¢ deceased. Also perused the statements of sheet Witnesses recorded investigation and the otherniaterial"placed',.t_?Ii the 1.0. along with the chargesheet. V
4. Sri Raghavend:*a--}{;--..__the 'Counsel for the petitioners--accused, 3'strongEy that from the first ¢;lomlp'1a:};.: 10.3002 filed by the accused No.4 "'brother--in--1aw of the deceased, it couldybell .se.en"t'hat'at; about 10.30 p.m. on 25.10.2002 Bharath Kumar, his wife, the deceased and their one year old female child Ku'm.S_aniv1<ia all slept in their room in the house and that at" about 7.00 a.m. on the next day, they were all lying unconscious and therefore, immediately they were taken to hospital and found that they all had consumed some poisonous substance and hence the c-----C\""'\---'-"' 5 said complaint does not disclose ingredients of any of the offences for which the charge is proposed to be framed against these petitionerswaccused. He. contends that more than four months Sumermal Filed his complaint before the ll"
all these petitioners alleging that they deceased and that the accus_e'd._No.ll'. of the deceased and fatller_ child administered poison to and also to the said llilhild all the petitioners~accused coIi1n1itte'd._thve saidgolffelnces. He further contends that on':'t:he__:basislofthetesaid belated complaint, the police ' conce1'vnedV"vladded accusation against these petitioners lforlthe under Sections 30413 r/W 34. Though there no material to show that petitioner Nos.1 to 3 {respectively accused l\ios.4, 5 and 2) were in any way responsible for the consumption of poisonous substance by accused No.1, the deceased and the said child and to show that these petitioners were in any way responsible y-
for the demand for dowry from the parents"
deceased. He further contends that absolutely _ no material placed on record to tarima "= if these petitioners accused comrnittettie ..the'teoffence"Vunde:'l Section 498A of IPC. While contending S0tilié€v«Subi;I1itS that the impugned order chargels all the said offences against"? t_these'atjaetitioners-accused cannot be sustained petitioners-
accused "V_ijayl:umar Majage, the learned HCGP stroinlgiuyfcioiiteiilds that it was only accused No.1; Bhiarath'-»KtuaiarV,' the husband of the deceased and tth:e«,.chi1d,"was with the deceased and the child A"'c1ut*1ngth_en__nigi'it between 25th and 26th October 2002, during night all the three were found consumed {poisonous substance, as a result of which the deceased
-' accused No.1 and the said child survived, and f "therefore charge for the offence under Section 307 IPC (___.C_"\/'\..--.p for attempting to murder the child, has to-the' ~ against accused No.1 if not against the'o'thetfv.accu.sed_V dd' N os.2, 4 and 5. He further conte.nd:;""t}.{iattt.1'1e of the complainant recorded"'---bgy the mxecdtive " it Magistrate during inquest proc'e.edi.n_gs.cie--a.r1y_.idisc1ose that there was demandidfor the parents of the deceased, by__acc:dsVe'd:tNo.2:;«.VmothVer~gin--1aw of the deceased i°ather--in--law of the deceasevd.wh'o~.is therefore there is enough material' for against them for the offences andeir and 4 of Dowry Prohibition fu_rther"'c.ontends that the said statement of » clearly discloses that the deceased was cruelty by her husband, father--in--1aw ni10therein--1aw (respectiveiy accused Nos} to 3] and "tI1erefore, the charge has to be framed against accused and 2 for the offences under Sections 498A and :f'304B IPC. While contending so, he submits that at]. the petitioners--accused cannot be discharged from all the r-*-~§*""'"-'-v said offences as prayed for in the present 'irievhigision petition.
6. As could be seen from the ;_-statement" ofVfC ":1 complainant. the father of _adece'a.sed, the allegations as to the cruelty are againsaaccused 3 only and no allegations areniadegagain'st"accused Nos.4 and
5. Even the stater11ent"of "recorded by the Taluka ExeciitiVe:iQ_ffic'erA_nduringfthe iiriquest proceedings also doles allegations of i1l--treatment by accused" "This being so, as rightly subrrritt.ed the learned counsel for the revision the Trial Court is not justified in proceeding to against accused Nos.4 and 5 for the V V' _ offe'nceg--.1Lmd{=;'r Section 498A rec. V'? '."_«It is the very case of the prosecution that accused his deceased wife and their one year old female child were in the room during the relevant night. Further the case of the prosecution is that on the next ( day morning, accused No.1, his deceased wife and the said child were all found lying unconscious in the"-said room and therefore they came to be taken and it was found that they had .c substance and consequently the accused No.1 and his child .surviyed: of circumstances, the charge for _offenceVV:unde'r Section 307 {PC could be framed 'aicciised No.1 only, but not against anyof thecthier 'Further, as could be seen iiforra in the complaint and the .statementuof-the-__cornfilainant recorded by the Taluka Of:ficer....during the inquest proceedings, the to i11~treatment to the deceased in connecti.oni._*.5v1'th the demand for dowry are against accused. Nos.l to 3 only, of whom, accused No.3 is dead. ifiifther, absolutely there is no allegation against any of accused Nos.4 and 5 that they ill-treated the deceased in connection with the demand for dowry. Therefore as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the ,...._('--x._....
11 against accused Nos.1 and 2 only charge for the offence un_(i.er..Sect'ui{V)':c_V'4 »7 A' be framed against accuse;dNi5i_}{I'[Vo11:jI'y - _ «. V' The accused N0s.4 befci-cs. Tfial Court, who are respectivelypetitiifilefs Iaand 2 herein, are