Karnataka High Court
Renuka vs Surekha on 11 September, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Anti
VI3aiaL'1<;ishna;""---- . ~
& _ S appa i»~€<)1:§_1<23r,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 11"! DAY or sEPTEMB1ra§_ii"2'£it3--§__j:. _
Before
THE HOMBLE MR JUSTICE HgILt:V3;bi' : T
Criminal Revision PetitTic.-=1} No:1._131/ 3
Between:
Srnt.Renuka,
W /0 Pundalik Kangralkar,
Aged about 50 years,
Occ: Household work, _ I _ -
12/%.Ye11ur, _
Tq.&Dist:BcEgaum. " " .. ;.f.v
PETI"i"IONER
(By Sri.S.P. Kulk-a1f.niA62;,_i?e{»ié:g1g;1*;afid:fa"i\/€{é:1jV,_£'ic1v.)
Srntfiurekha, V
D/0 Ganapati Kqieéieir'; V '
Age about 24, years;. '
Gar1"a'pati , ' .' .<
S/0 Gt1'n_du Kblekzzllr; . "
Aged ab0"u'_c V.
'V Agéd.a'b§5'u,t 27 years.
" % n : A11'uér§§R'/:) K&§i1A1jtia1--;«
K_ha1i~a.p'u'1"',
Disst: ;}3e1ga};1n1.._ ---- :
RESPONDEJNTS
W,
(By Sri. Ashok R. Kaiyanshetty, Adv.)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under 8.397 r/w Se--::_.4OI of
Cr.PC, praying to set aside the judgment/order of acquitta1"._dated
28.2.2006 made in S.C.No.268/2004 passed by the Fast Trackflourtvvll 85
Add}. Sessions Judge, Belgaurn, and etc. »_
The petition coming on for admission this day, the,V_uC'QuV1't:1nade'the
foilowingz -
ORDER
This revision is by the compIainar«t'seekin€gv- to set a.side"tIae order of acquittai dated 28.2.2006 passed by the___§ast'Trac1§iCotirteAVIii and Add}. Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in for such other reliefs. V
2. Respondentfnti:§;i~'is the tvfiie of deceased; Respondent no.2 is father of Respondent' No.1 no.3 is brother's son of Respondent no.2."'_Oin._ 1.6.1 cornpiaint came to be filed by Petitioner herein, aiir/'2§i.r1z%' 1998 her son has been murdered. Ear1ie.r,.on case '1'ia«d,.__b.een registered by Respondent no.2 herein with the Kha»nap.ur'.Po.1ice___Station against unknown persons for offence 279 According to the cornpiainant, respondents 1 toZt3 after com'1'nitt'iing"1;'ht' murder of her son and to flee away from justice ifiled complaint on 4.10.98 to make it appear as an accident case. ._¢o,»;fipiaint dated 16.12.98, sworn Statement of the petitioner- \'V{.., La.) complainant was recorded and 3 witnesses were examined on her behalf. The learned Magistrate took cognizance for offence L}/S 177(2), 302, 201 r/w section 34 of IPC and committed the case to sessions...".,The-Fast Track Court framed ch21.1';zt2s against accused and havingtiriedllthemafter recording 313 statement, acquitted the accused ho--iding~:'that» the case,' against accused is not proved beyond reasonable"dAo'ub't,_ aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has p1'efe'r--red this revdisiotn pi-Ltitidon.
3. Heard.
4. On perusal olthe reas.o_11.ing._ gibve'n",by'*--tVh'e learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Cc}tir'i.7i"rt~'isrioticed thc,_llea'rn--e'd Sessions Judge has taken note of the pa:"teh;__in;-ama anld~':pos"'tvniortern report filed in respect of accidental cleathdof caseiof complainant is entirely based on extrajudicial e'cni't~svsiili':1 the accused on 4.12.1998 in the house of acc.u{seduno.2 bt::i'_orc PW/s.3 and 4. Except this, there is no other concrete,evi_dence.A«abotz_1 the exact time of alleged offence and there is no :_._evidence".about"=the_ :afC.=v;i_";3c,>11 used for the commission of murder of decelased. The teal-n.§5<.i Meizgistrate ought to have referred the complaint itfor:inttesti,gation*to the police u/s 156(3) IPC. On the other hand, only on strength of sworn sl.a1i.(2}T1t*I'1t of complainant and evidence of some of witnlee-.s_e_s_,l the learned %\,=i;1§:,istrate has committed the case. Hence, no \;(x"
proper investigation was conducted and the weapon of murder was not seized.
5. The complainant tried to indict respondents "a's"..iac.cused stating that it is not a case of accidental death but a o.f:h'dn1i:c'ida1 4_ death on the ground that, if at all it was a case>vof4accideVnt';t-accused £10.11' a. who is wife of deceased should have perforrr:«edi:'a11' icustotilalryg the death of her husband. Even accordi_n"g....to complainant,"«:3§vi'1Va.t is being noticed is that after marriage of _respond_en:tvVnoV_h_1 with the deceased who was serving in military, when he"cairnei~t_g 3y-0ei11urgiv'i;rj11a.ge on leave he went to his in--1aws house and broughvtiais. .to._his'_ho'u;se. But as accused no.1 was not happy house she compelled her husband to As such deceased took her to his in--1aws onAt that time ali the 3 accused hatched cor1spi_r_acyiito~vcoinmiti:iur'der of the deceased and induced the deCe_:g'1sed_to .._K.ounidai"vili1age on 4.10.1998 and to have non-veg. food thierni "v--_/fitevordingiy, deceased left Yallur village on a scooter to Koundaiiivi11age'j__oi1 4.10.98 day at 1.0 p.m. Thereafter, accused 'informed t.he=._farr1i1y members of deceased that deceased died in a i"'rC~a~[§i éiaecidenteriear Karambai cross. According to the version of the 1' ._icoi_npI'ali*naiit, accused no.2 gave false complaint to the police stating that W/t some vehicle dashed against the deceased consequent to which he died whereas it is a case of homicide. When the Complainant approac"hed the police and brought to their notice about the alleged conspiraraf,iVitl1e';~piolice did not heed to her words. On the other hand, the done regarding accidental death.
6. The complainant has al1eged..__f.Vurtl§~-Np.fiat, deceased, pension papers were got Accused no.1 filed a complaint against i't_o.i,Vl\'l'andgaoiiFlolice and got back all the pension papers stated, that on 13.12.98 when PW.3gi Where he met accused no.2 and no.1 has lodged a complaint and for which accused no.2 apologized and .cO'f'lél'»t.t1~"Koundal along with Gundu Chitte on the next day. ()nit'heT Maruti Tombre and PW.4 Gundu Chitte,' liousei iofl't"i'1'e'iaccused where all the accused confessed beforeiithevirrith.at'~.deceased Anantrao was suspecting chastity of accused :{no_,,l,vover 'which thierfeizvas a quarrel and' in the said quarrel accused pg and 2 caught hold of him and accused no.3 assaulted him with a thie"'-head as a result he died. They asked PWs.3 and 4 to them and they would give up the claim from military office. W"
7. Referring to the evidence of the witnesses and also background of above eXtra--judicial confession said to have been made, the Fast Track Court Judge opined there is no 1'}:1€Ir}.tlOI1'i:l.;'«£tl.C:)l'AC)V17;1'V'Lv.A"£l'1(i' weapon used for the assault and also noting that there is4"onlyljo:ie'iiriju13r on the head and that there was no biood stain on the . petitioner has failed to prove the case 7.bey;'ori~d Referring to the evidence of PS1 regajr_d--ing lease section 304A on the complaint of acct1_vse:ci:_ri--o»:2 noting the photographs of deceased depicts right side of the head and biood stain on the 'opined that it is a case of accidental disbelieved the version of the compl_air'i_ti;»andl' stating that blood injury could not havelfoeen with a club as stated in the complaint. The that extra-judicial confession is highlypdoubtftill having' toizhe strained relations between PW.3 and acculsedv the accliised.
8. ._ the entire material on record and the injipuvgiied orld-::'1's=._'. ivdo not find any irreg'ularit_v as such committed by thellcourtsi. belcivfiealling for interference. Accordingly, criminal revision isg_di'sriiissed.
At this stage, learned Counsei for petitioner submits that entire compensation arnount of the deceased has been withdrawn by the accused. If that is so, it is for the petitioner to approach appropriate authorities claiming extension of monetary benefits in her favour in accordance with law.
Send back the records.
Sub/