Karnataka High Court
Sri.Praskash Naik S/O Lokya Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
CRL.P.No.100926/2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100926/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI. PRAKASH NAIK S/O. LOKYA NAIK,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MAREBIHAL THANDA,
TAL:HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, DIST: BALLARI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
DIST: BALLARI,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD, BENCH AT DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED
NO.1 IN CRIME NO.177/2017 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A), 302, 304(B) R/W SECTION
34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT, 1961.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.P.No.100926/2018
:2:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439 of the code of Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth for brevity referred to as 'Cr.P.C') praying to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.177/2017 registered by the respondent Hagaribommanahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under section 498(A), 302, 304(B), r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth for brevity referred to as 'IPC') and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (henceforth for brevity referred to as 'D.P. Act).
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that one Sri. L.T. Laxman Naik, claimed to be the father of deceased Sangeeta Bai, lodged a complaint with respondent police on 13.09.2017. The summary of the said complaint is that, the complainant's daughter Sangeeta Bai was given in marriage to the present petitioner on 18.06.2017, at which time, in the form of CRL.P.No.100926/2018 :3: dowry, some quantum of gold, a motorcycle, cash of `50,000/- and silver articles apart from home utility articles were given. Within three months after their marriage, the accused/petitioner started demanding more dowry and was subjecting his wife (Sangeeta Bai) to cruelty. The said details regarding the cruelty meted to her by her husband being revealed by said Sangeeta Bai before the complainant, who was her father. In that regard, elders in the village including the complainant had advised the present petitioner suitably. They had also stated that complainant would give `50,000/- within a month, however the complainant could not keep up his promise. Even for the said reason, the petitioner/accused No.1 started subjecting his wife to further cruelty. That being the case, hearing over telephone from the people of the place that his daughter was put to fire, the complainant rushed to the hospital at Ballari and noticed that his daughter was admitted for severe burn injuries. When inquired his daughter, she told him that it CRL.P.No.100926/2018 :4: was the accused and his family members who doused her with kerosene and lit fire. The said complaint was registered against the present petitioner/accused No.1 and four other accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 307 read with 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act.
3. After the incident, while the injured was under
treatment, she succumbed to the injuries on 16.09.2017. Thereafter in the crime, Sections 302 and 304(B) of IPC were also incorporated. The complainant police after completing investigation have filed charge sheet against all five accused including the present petitioner/accused No.1 for the alleged offences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his argument, while reiterating contention taken up in the petition submitted that the alleged incident is said to have taken place at 10.00 a.m. on 13.09.2017 whereas the complainant has given his statement in the form of CRL.P.No.100926/2018 :5: complaint to the police in the hospital only at 5.00 p.m. on the said date. As such, there is delay in the matter. He further submitted that C.W.17, in his statement to the police, has stated that when he rushed to the house of the deceased after hearing some noise from the said house, he apart from noticing Suneeta Bai suffering in pain due to fire, also noticed the presence of accused No.1/petitioner and after dousing the fire, the injured was shifted to hospital. This shows that petitioner was innocent and he attempted to put off the fire on the person of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that the non-recording of dying declaration by Taluka Executive Magistrate for the reason that the patient was not in a fit condition to speak would itself go to show that she has not revealed the detail of the incident to her parents. Finally submitting that other accused are also enlarged on bail and that the accused is languishing in jail since long time, learned counsel prayed for allowing the petition. CRL.P.No.100926/2018 :6:
5. Learned HCGP, who has filed his objections on behalf of the respondent, in his arguments submitted that the charge sheet materials clearly make out a case against the present petitioner. The statements of charge sheeted witnesses including the family members of the deceased clearly reveal that the petitioner was subjecting his wife to cruelty demanding dowry from her. The statements of panchayathidars also reveal that in that regard panchayath was also held wherein the accused No.1/petitioner was advised by the elder not to subject his wife to cruelty. Further stating that the medical reports shows that the death was due to burns suffered by the injured and her statement before her parents clearly reveals that it is her husband and his family members who committed the alleged offence, the learned HCGP prays for rejection of the petition.
6. The present petitioner is the husband of deceased Suneeta Bai with whom his marriage is said to have taken place about three months prior to the alleged CRL.P.No.100926/2018 :7: incident. Admittedly, the alleged incident has taken place inside the house of the accused. The incident of deceased sustaining burns is said to have taken place on 13.09.2017 at about 10.00 a.m., whereas the complainant is shown to have given his statement in the hospital to the police at 5.00 p.m., on the same day. Considering the details given in the charge sheet papers about the complainant receiving the information and rushing to the hospital and seeing the condition of his daughter, who was suffering with more than 90% burn injuries on her body and subsequently the police visiting the hospital based on an MLC information received by them, at this stage, cannot lead to hold that there is any unexplained delay in lodging the complaint.
7. C.W.17 though is shown to have stated in his statement to the police that when he is said to have rushed to the house of the petitioner/accused No.1 after hearing some disturbing noise from the said house, he saw Sangeeta Bai with burning fire on her body and CRL.P.No.100926/2018 :8: presence of the petitioner there. According to the statement of C.W.17, the fire was put off and the injured was shifted to hospital, but there is nothing in the charge sheet to show that it was the present petitioner/accused No.1 who shifted the injured to Hosapete hospital. If the petitioner himself had shifted the injured to the hospital, the question arises as to why he did not shift her further to higher hospital including VIMS at Ballari. There is nothing on record at this stage to show that the petitioner/accused had accompanied the injured to the said VIMS Hospital at Ballari to which hospital the injured was shifted after the incident.
8. Admittedly, in this case, it appears that the Taluk Executive Magistrate has not recorded dying declaration of the deceased. Charge sheet paper at this stage go to show that at the inquiry of the Investigating Officer so also the Taluk Executive Magistrate, the medical doctors opined that the patient was not in a fit condition to give statement. The said endorsement of the doctor is CRL.P.No.100926/2018 :9: on 14.09.2017. By the said statement itself, it cannot be disbelieved that the patient was not in a condition to speak immediately after the incident i.e. on 13.09.2017. As such, the statement of complainant and her family members given before the Investigating Officer stating that the details of the incident was revealed by none else than victim herself cannot be disbelieved at this stage. However the same would be the subject matter of the full-fledged trial to find truthfulness in it. As such, at this stage, the statement of the complainant, C.W.18 and C.W.19 to the effect that the deceased herself revealed that it was her husband who committed the act cannot be discarded. Merely because the other accused are said to have been enlarged on bail would not be a criteria to enlarge the present petitioner also on bail. Since the accusation made against the present petitioner is on very much higher side and more aggravated compared to the other accused. As such, I am of the view that in the alleged facts and circumstances of the case as could be prima facie made CRL.P.No.100926/2018 : 10 : out, at this stage, the petitioner/accused No.1 does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
9. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Yan/EM