Karnataka High Court
Jagadish vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2020
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.74 of 2012
BETWEEN
1. JAGADISH,
S/O ANKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.54,
RAMANAHALLI, BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT.
2. MANJUNATH,
S/O CHANNAIAH @ CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF No.212,
RAMANAHALLI, BEDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H.P. LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KANAKAPURA POLICE STATION,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
2. SRI YALAVAIAH
S/O CHANNAIAH,
RESIDING AT RAMANAHALLI,
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTIONS 397 READ WITH 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
24.12.2011 PASSED IN SPL.C.No.141/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA
REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTIONS 227 AND 228
OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS AND ALLOW THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') challenging the order dated 24.12.2011 dismissing their discharge application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. in Spl.Case No.141/2010.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The status of the parties before the Trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.
3
4. The case of the petitioners/accused is that the respondent/Police filed charge sheet against these accused and two other accused, in all four accused, for the offence under Section 306, 504, 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for shot 'IPC') and under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act. After appearance of the accused, accused Nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging them from the charges. The Trial Court, after considering the material placed on record, dismissed the application. Hence, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused contended that on perusal of the statement of CWs.1 to 4, absolutely there is no ingredient made out for framing charges under SC/ST Act or under Section 306 of IPC. Absolutely, there is no material placed on record. Even otherwise, accused No.1, being the employer of CW.4, went to protect the interest of CW.4 and that itself cannot be said that he has committed the offence. Even 4 otherwise, it is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court and other High Courts that there in no ingredient available on record for framing charges under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. In support of his case, he relied upon the following decisions and prayed for allowing the revision petition.
i) Dr. Sau. Suryakanta Ramesh Ajmera vs.
State of Maharashtra and others.
(2011 Cri.L.J. page 1803)
ii) Lala and Others vs.
State of Punjab
2013(4) Crimes 278 (P&H)
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that on going through the statement of CW.4, it is clear that the deceased, accused Nos.3 and 4 went to Muthathi for picnic. CW.4 was having illicit intimacy with accused No.1-Yelavaiah where she was working and as per the statement, she was having affair with accused No.1 and after the deceased and accused Nos.3 and 4 went along with her, accused Nos.1 and 2 went in a car and went to the hotel room of the deceased and accused No.3 stayed in room No.112 of Sathya Sai Lodge. There they 5 abused the deceased in filthy language taking his caste name in the presence of CWs.2 and 3. Thereafter, they went and took CW.4 in their car after abusing and assaulting accused No.4. Thereafter, in the midnight the deceased Raju committed suicide in the hotel room. Thereby, the prosecution recorded the statement of CWs.2 and 3 i.e. the hotel room boy and cashier, which clearly indicate the offence committed by the accused by taking caste name of the deceased and thereby, the deceased committed suicide. In fact, the case was registered under Section 302 of IPC and after post mortem, the Police filed charges under Section 306 of IPC which clearly attracts the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act. The Court cannot re-appreciate or evaluate the probative value of the statement at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the case.
7. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the documents, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:
6
"Whether the Trial Court committed error in dismissing the discharge application which calls for interference by this Court."
8. It is an admitted fact that the deceased Raju along with CW.4 and accused Nos.3 and 4 went to Muthathi and in the night they stayed in Sathya Sai Hotel. In the night, the deceased and accused No.3 stayed in room No.112 and accused No.4 and CW.4 stayed in room No.102. At about 11.30 p.m., it is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 came and enquired with CWs.2 and, then they went into room No.112 and the deceased Raju opened the door and accused No.3 was sleeping. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 abused the deceased Raju by taking his case name and thereafter in the night, they went to room No.102 and took CW.4 along with them in the car. In the morning, it was found that the deceased Raju committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan with the bed sheet and the hotel boy and others opened the door forcibly where the door was locked from inside and they found that Raju committed suicide and accused No.3 was still sleeping due 7 to consumption of heavy alcohol. Thereafter, the Police came and conducted the inquest panchanama obtained complaint from the father of the deceased and CW.1 gave statement that the accused might have committed murder of his son. Therefore, the Police registered Crime No.98/2010 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and Section 13(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and the Post-mortem report revealed that the Raju committed suicide which is not a homicidal hanging, but it was a suicidal hanging. Therefore, they considered that the offence was under
Section 306 of IPC and laid charge sheet. On perusal of the statement of CW.2, who is a room boy and CW.3- cashier statement clearly stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 abused the deceased Raju in filthy language taking his caste name. Thereafter, they went down to room No.102 where CW.4 and accused No.4 were staying together and took CW.4 along with them after slapping accused No.4. The statement of Shashikala goes to show that she was having affair with accused No.1 who worked in the brick factory of accused No.1 and after knowing that CW.4 came 8 along with accused Nos.3 and 4, the accused thought that the deceased was the cause for bringing CW.4 along with accused Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, he abused the deceased Raju in filthy language by taking his caste name. The statement of CW.4 goes to show that the motive after the alleged incident was that accused Nos.1 and 2 came to the hotel and abused by the deceased Raju taking his caste name. It is not the case where the accused insulted and went back, whereas causing insult to the accused in the public view, the accused felt insulted and committed suicide by hanging. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners stated supra are different from the facts of the case in hand wherein the person has committed suicide after hearing the insulting words from accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, those judgments will not come to the aid of the petitioners. That apart, this Court cannot appreciate the statements of CWs.2 to 4 at this stage. It is settled that the probative value cannot be looked into while framing charges, on the other hand there are ingredients for framing charges and 9 the material placed on record shows that the deceased committed suicide due to the abuse of accused Nos.1 and 2 taking caste name of the deceased in the presence of other persons. Therefore, the commission of suicide is punishable under Section 306 of IPC and it is punishable with 10 years of imprisonment and it is not disputed that the deceased belong to SC/ST community and the accused does not belong to SC/ST community. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act are attracted. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that uttering words by itself will not attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, but this Court cannot express any opinion at this stage for framing of charge. If any opinion is expressed on the merits, it may prejudice the case of the accused. Therefore, without expressing any opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The application filed by the petitioners has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court which does not call for interference by this Court. Hence, I pass the following: 10
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
The Trial Court shall proceed with the matter and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE mv