Karnataka High Court
Sri Vishal vs State By Mahadevapura Police on 18 December, 2021
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1023 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VISHAL
S/O BHARAT RAJ MATA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDENT AT FLAT NO. A-907
GOPALAN GRANDEUR
APARTMENT , HOODI CIRCLE
BENGALURU - 560 048
2. SMT.GARIMA GROVER
W/O VISHAL
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RESIDENT AT FLAT NO.A-907
GOPALAN GRANDEUR
APARTMENT , HOODI CIRCLE
BENGALURU - 560 048
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SUNIL S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI
T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY MAHADEVAPURA POLICE
MAHADEVAPURA
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
REP.BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.S.VINAYAKA, HCGP)
***
2
THIS CRL.R.P IS FILED U/S 397(1)OF CR.PC
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2019
ONE PASSED BY THE L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE ON AN APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS HEREIN UNDER SEC.227 OF CRPC, IN
SPL.C.C NO.511/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY PASS AN
APROPRIATE ORDER TO ALLOW THE ABOVE REVISION
PETITION BY PASSING NECESSARY ORDER FOR
DISCHARGE OF THE PETITIONERS IN
SPL.CC.NO.511/2017 & ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the parties, same is taken up for disposal.
2. Heard Sri. Sunil Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. T. S. Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and perused the records.
3. The present revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the learned I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, 3 whereby the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. by the Revision Petitioners came to be rejected in toto. Being aggrieved by the same, the present is revision petition is filed.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Seven accused persons including the Revision Petitioners were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 370(4), 306, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
5. The presence of the accused persons was secured. After accused persons entered appearance before the learned Sessions Judge, an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. came to be filed by accused Nos. 6 and 7 contending that they are no where connected with the incident except for the fact that incident is occurred in their house and therefore, they should be discharged from the criminal case.
6. The charge sheet materials would show that on 02.04.2017 at about 9.15PM, a girl by name Phool 4 Mani Murmur, who was employed by accused No.5 as maid servant has jumped from the 9th Floor of the Gopalan Grandeur Apartment and lost her life. Thereafter, parents of the victim girl visited Bangalore and lodged a complaint with the Police on 04.04.2017 about the incident contending that girl has been forcibly kept by accused No.5 without paying proper salary and without sending her for her native place and thereby victim girl committed suicide. It is alleged that accused persons are responsible for suicidal death of victim girl. The Police after thorough investigation laid charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.
7. The Revision Petitioners - accused Nos. 6 and 7 contend that they have only given shelter to accused No.5 and to look after accused No.5, the victim girl also came to their house and they were all professionals and major portion of the day they would spend out side the house and they were not knowing as to what was being transpired in their absence in their house and therefore, they are not responsible and liable to be prosecuted for the offences alleged against them. 5
8. The prosecution resisted the said application by filing necessary detailed objections.
9. The learned Sessions Judge after consideration of the rival contentions rejected the application filed by Revision Petitioners - accused Nos.6 and 7.
10. Being aggrieved by the same, the Revision Petitioners - accused Nos.6 and 7 preferred this revision petition.
11. In the revision petition following grounds are raised:
• First of all deceased Phool Mani Murmur died due to accidental fall and nobody including the petitioners were responsible for her death.
• Though the police themselves on 02.04.2017 have removed the body of the deceased from the place of the incident to the hospital, they have not registered any FIR till 04.04.2017 from which it can be inferred that nobody was responsible for her death since it was an 6 accidental fall. The learned Trial Judge while dealing with discharge application failed to appreciate the said facts.
• The respondent police on the basis of their own report have registered a case on 04.04.2017 with a malafide intention to nail these petitioners also, though they were nothing to do with the alleged incident, which rather goes to show that the respondent police in order to wash off their hands they have falsely implicated the petitioners as accused No.6 &7. The same was not appreciated by the learned Trial Judge while dealing with the discharge application.
• It is submitted that the deceased at the time of alleged incident she was not an employee of the petitioners. That apart she was not a minor as on the date of incident/accident nor on the day that she was hired by Smt.Prema Grover i.e.on 13.10.2015, since she was born on 02.02.1997, as on 13.10.2015 she was major, more specifically she was aged 18 years and 8 months i.e. Accused No.4, as such Section 370(4) of IPC and Sec 75 of Juvenile Justice Act does not get attracted. The learned Judge, without taking the said aspect into consideration has rejected the 7 Application one made by the Petitioners herein under Sec.227 of Cr.PC.
• There is no material evidence on record to connect that the petitioners are responsible for the cause of death of deceased Phool Mani Murmur, as such Section 306 IPC also does not get attached against the petitioners herein. The trial Judge, without proper reference to the statement of witnesses, has rejected the application one made by the Petitioners.
• Though there was any material on record to establish the offence of cheating, the Trial Judge, without proper reference to statements of parties had reached an irrelevant conclusion stating that the Petitioners, have hired the deceased without ascertaining her parents, further they have not sent her to her native place, they extracted work by giving physical and mental torture. Such a conclusion that was reached by the Trial Court is not based on any evidence on record. It is submitted that CW-3 is the Watchman of the Apartment whereas CW-12 to CW-18 are some of the residents of Gopalan Grandeur Apartment, none of them were known to deceased Phool Mani Murmur 8 nor to the Petitioners and there was no reason for them to make such a statement before the police. The police with an intention to cook up evidence claims to have recorded the statement of CW-3 and CW-12 to CW-18 as if they were acquainted with deceased Phool Mani Murmur, on a bare perusal of the said statements it appears which are artificial in nature.
• Admittedly the Petitioners have not hired deceased Phool Mani Murmur nor they have taken any service from her. On the other hand they have hired Smt.Mary and Smt.Mahadevi for doing household work in their house. The trial judge, without proper reference to same, has rejected the application one filed by the Petitioner under Sec.227 of Cr.PC.
12. Reiterating the above grounds, Sri Sunil Rao, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners vehemently contended that at no stretch of imagination none of the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused persons are attracted. Therefore, writ petition needs to be allowed. 9
13. Per contra, Sri. V.S. Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the grounds urged in the revision petition by contending that there is no prima facie material and the charge sheet materials are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and the same has been appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the application filed by the accused persons under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. He further contends that this Court at the time of considering the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is not required to be held mini trial by considering the charge sheet materials to appreciate the case of the parties that has been rightly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto.
14. This Court has perused the materials on record and also trial Court records. Prima facie, the complaint and charge sheet material indicate that victim girl has been brought by accused No.5 and accused No.5 took shelter in the house of accused Nos.6 and 7.
-1 10 Admittedly, accused No.6 is a Dentist and accused No.7 is a Chartered Accountant. Therefore, what exactly transpired in the house is not known to accused Nos.6 and 7, as they were away from the house for considerable amount of time in a day. However, there is no previous complaint as to the alleged exploitation or harassment that is meted out to the victim girl. Even according to the complaint averments that two years earlier to the incident, victim girl has visited and made complaint to her parents about alleged harassment.
15. These allegations and materials on record may not attract offences under Sections 370(4) and 420 of IPC against the accused Nos.6 and 7. Further, since Section 34 of IPC is invoked by the prosecution, it should not be construed that if the offences against accused Nos.6 and 7 is dropped, the case of the prosecution would not suffer. In the absence of any ingredients made out by the prosecution in the charge sheet material to attract the offences under Sections 370(4) and 420 of IPC against the accused Nos.6 and 7 and to that extent application filed by them deserves to
-1 11 be allowed by interfering with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, pass the following:
ORDER i. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part;
ii. Application filed by the Revision Petitioners - accused Nos.6 and 7 under Section 227
Cr.P.C. before the I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Spl. CC No. 511/2017 is allowed in part;
iii. Revision Petitioners - accused Nos.6 and 7 are discharged for the offences punishable under Sections 370(4) and 420 of IPC; iv. The learned Sessions Judge shall continue the trial against the Revision Petitioners - accused Nos.6 and 7 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC; v. As the date of incident is 02.04.2017, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to
-1 12 expedite the trial and complete the same on or before 30th June 2022.
Sd/-
JUDGE VK