Karnataka High Court
Sunandamma vs State By Malebennur Police on 13 January, 2021
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
:1:
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 294 OF 2020
BETWEEN
Sunandamma
W/o Rudramani
Aged about 59 years
R/o Bank colony, 1st Cross
Chitradurga Town
Chitradurga - 577501.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. S.G. Rajendra Reddy, Advocate)
AND
State by Malebennur Police
Rept. By S.P.P.
High Court Building
Bengaluru - 560 001.
... Respondent
(By Smt Rashmi Jadhav - HCGP)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to
set aside the order dated 21.11.2019 in S.C.No.70/2018
passed by the I-Addl. District Judge at Davanagere and
discharge the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A, 304-B, 306 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
:2:
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for
Admission, this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner is seeking to set-aside the order dated 21.11.2019 in S.C.No.70/2018 passed by the I Addl.District Judge at Davanagere and discharge the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 498- A, 304-B, 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC beside Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Heard Sri S.G.Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for Respondent - State who are present before the Court. Perused the records.
3. It is transpired in the complaint filed by one Ramanagowda before the Malebennur Police Station, Davanagere District alleging that he had one son and two daughters. That his elder daughter namely Yashoda was given in marriage to Accused No.1 - Sachin of Chitradurga. During her marriage, her parents had given :3: dowry in terms of 8 tolas of gold and household utensils. Subsequent to the marriage with Sachin, they lead happy marital life. Petitioner/Accused No.2 - Sunandamma is none other than the mother of Accused No.1 - Sachin. That about two months ago they used to cause some harassment to the deceased Yashoda by insisting her to get a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents' house for doing some business. The same was informed to the complainant - Ramanagouda who is her father and also to her mother. Subsequent to getting information about such demand made by accused No.1 - Sachin and so also, his parents, the parents of deceased -Yashoda had been to the house of her husband - Sachin and in order to advise to her daughter. It is alleged that accused No.1 - Sachin had some illicit relationship with accused No.3 - Pavitra which was causing some physical as well as mental harassment to her. This kind of illicit relationship developed and continued by accused No.1 due to which, deceased - Yashoda had suffered with mental harassment in the hands of her husband and so also his family member i.e., Accused No.2. However, Accused No.2 - :4: Sunandamma also demanded Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents for the purpose of doing some sort of business and causing some mental harassment to her. Due to that harassment meted out by the deceased in the hands of her husband and so also, the demand made by her mother-in-law who is arraigned as Accused No.2, deceased - Yashoda committed suicide by hanging within a span of seven years from the date of marriage. In pursuance of the said act of the accused on filing of a complaint by the complainant, the case in Crime No.156/2017 came to be registered. Subsequently, the IO took up the case for investigation and thoroughly investigated the case by recording the statement of witnesses and conducted mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and thereafter laid the charge sheet against the accused persons in C.C.No.237/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 304B, 498A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC beside Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
4. Whereas, Sri S.G.Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the death :5: note left by deceased-Yashoda which is running into two sheets to contend that nowhere in the death note, deceased - Yashoda has spelt out any sort of allegation against this accused No.2 - Sunandamma being her mother-in-law that she has given physical as well as mental harassment and even causing for her death by hanging within a span of seven years from the date of her marriage. However, there are no prima-facie materials against this accused in commission of the offence. There is no sufficient material secured by the IO during the course of the investigation, despite of it the charge sheet has been laid against this petitioner mere because deceased - Yashoda has committed suicide by hanging within a span of seven years from the date of her marriage. The allegation made in the complaint against this petitioner is only a theory set-up by the prosecution to implicate her in the alleged crime that she was also causing for the death of deceased - Yashodha.
5. The second limb of the argument addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the deceased :6: was in an incompatible condition with her husband - Sachin, because of such condition she last her breath by hanging herself with frustration. But it does not amount to cruelty either physically or mentally even there is no single incident of abuse or assault amounting to cruelty in nature. But this petitioner/accused No.2 has not given any sort of abetment for commitment of suicide by the deceased. On this premise, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for intervention of this Court by exercising powers under Section 397 r/w 402 of Cr.P.C, if not, the gravamen of the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.2 would be the sufferer. On all these grounds, he is seeking for allowing of the petition by setting aside the order passed by the trial Court and consequently, discharge this accused of the offences leveled against her.
6. On the contrary, learned HCGP for the respondent
- State has specifically taken me through the substance of the FIR said to have been recorded by the Malebennur Police by registering the case in Crime No.156/2017. The marriage of the deceased-Yashoda was performed with :7: accused No.1 - Sachin and he is none other than the son of this petitioner/Accused No.2. During the time of the marriage, dowry in terms of 8 tolas of gold and household articles were given and so also, cloths were also given to the bridegroom and a cash of Rs.20,000/- was also given for the purpose of purchasing the cloths. During the marriage negotiation that his parents, his sister and his relatives were also present. Accordingly, the marriage negotiation was completed and subsequent to that, the marriage was performed as per the customs prevailing in their society on 2.3.2017 at Srukruteendra Choultry. Subsequent to the marriage, she has lead happy marital life with her husband only for a period of two months. While she was residing in the house of her husband, consisting Accused No.2 - Sunandamma who is her mother-in-law, she was also saying that considerable dowry has not been given and also she would say that if the marriage had been performed with some other girl, certainly, considerable dowry in terms of cash would have been given and also to do some business. Subsequent to filing of the complaint by Ramanagouda, the case in Crime :8: No.156/2017 came to be registered. Subsequently, the IO took up the case for investigation and thoroughly investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against the accused. However, this petitioner who is none other than the mother-in-law of deceased-Yashoda as well as other accused have to facing of trial for the aforesaid offences. The ingredients of the said offence finds place in a charge sheet laid by the IO against the accused before the committal court. The marriage of deceased - Yashoda was performed with Accused No.1 - Sachin, but for the physical as well as mental harassment meted by the deceased in the hands of her husband and his family member i.e., Accused No.2, she committed suicide. On all these premises, learned HCGP for respondent - State seeking dismissal of the petition, as there is no substance for intervention to set-aside the order passed by the trial Court in SC No.70/2018.
7. It is in this backdrop of the contention as taken by learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the case in Crime No.156/2017 came to be registered by the :9: first respondent - Malebennur Police. Whereas accused No.1 - Saching is no other than the son of accused No.2 - Sunandamma is no other than the mother-in-law of deceased - Yashodha. She had given information to her parents that her husband -Sachin was having illicit relationship with accused - 3 - Pavithra. This has caused some physical as well as mental harassment to her. On 3.7.2017, deceased - Yashoda who was found hanging in the room of their house. Due to the death of Yashoda that complaint came to be filed by CW-1 - Ramanagouda. Based upon the said complaint, criminal law was set into motion. He has given a statement before the police wherein he has specifically stated that during the marriage this petitioner - Sunandamma who is the mother-in-law of his daughter Yashoda was also present with other family members and also demanding bribe in terms of gold jewellary and as according to the marriage talk, the gold jewellary was given in terms of dowry and so also cash of Rs.20,000/- for the purpose of purchasing of cloth by accused No.1 - Sachin. Sri Veeresh and and Shanmukappa who were secured as panch witnesses to : 10 : conduct inquest over the dead body and in their presence the inquest panchanama was held and so also, drew the spot mahazar. Smt. Savithramma is an eye witness and mother of the deceased. On 03.07.2017 wherein the inquest was held over the dead body of her daughter - Yashoda and in her presence the mahazar was conducted. Whereas in the charge sheet consisting CW.1 to CW.45, CW.31 and 32 being the being the Doctors and CW.31 had issued the RFSL report and CW.32 conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued PM report. Accused No.1 and 2 said to have abusing the deceased - Yashodha in a filthy language and also given physical as well as mental harassment to her due to which she has stated in detail. In view of the death note how she has been meted out with mental as well as physical harassment in the hands of this petitioner as indicates. This petitioner was also insisting deceased - Yashoda to bring cash of Rupees one lakh from her parents' house for the purpose of doing some business by her son, despite of receipt of considerable dowry in terms of gold jewelries of 8 tolas and household articles which is reflected in the statement : 11 : given by Ramanagouda who is none other than the father of deceased-Yashoda. However, the statement of witnesses have to be subjected to test and also subjected to cross-examination in accordance with relevant provision of the Indian Evidence Act relating to deceased having been meted with physical as well mental harassment in the hands of the accused persons where she last her breath within a span of 7 years from the date of her marriage. Even at a cursory glance of the materials secured by the IO, it cannot be arrived at a conclusion that there are no materials or strong materials against the accused in commission of offences unless they are tested by the prosecution and also cross-examination by the defense counsel. Whatever the evidence facilitated by the prosecution has to be subjected to cross-examination by the defense counsel then it is the domain vested with the trial Court to appreciate the evidence to arrival at appropriate conclusion by tilting the balance for the offence lugged against the accused. Even the death note which has been left by the deceased- Yashoda, the same has to be subjected to test by the prosecution and also : 12 : subjected to cross-examination by the defense counsel, unless the material documents secured by the IO has not been subjected to test, it cannot be arrive at a conclusion that at this stage, there are no prima-facie materials against the accused to prove their guilt. But it is the domain vested with the prosecution by facilitating the worthwhile evidence to prove guilt of the accused. Therefore, in this petition it is said that the petitioner is not deserving to set-aside the impugned order passed by the court below rejecting the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. There is no justifiable reason or good reason for intervention as there is no error in the order passed by the court below. It cannot arise for dwelling into the details of the material documents and call for interference of the impugned order. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. : 13 :
In consequence upon the disposal of the main petition, I.A.1/2020 do not arise for consideration and the same stands rejected.
Whatever the observation made in this order, it shall not influence the mind of the trial Court and the matter shall be disposed of on merits, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE DKB