Karnataka High Court
Smt Nagarathna vs State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2019
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.410 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SMT. NAGARATHNA
W/O. SRI MARIAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.201,
HOSAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
HUNASAMARANAHALLI,
JALLA HOBLI, YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.P. YOGANNA, H.C.G.P.)
***
2
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 9-3-2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE LXXI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE (CCH-72) IN S.C. NO.1373 OF 2016.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21-3-2019 AND
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the accused in Sessions Case No.1373 of 2016 on the file of the LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for having dismissed her application filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') vide order dated 9-3-2018.
2. The accused has been charge-sheeted by the Yelahanka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the I.P.C.') on the complaint of one Srinivasa P., the father of the deceased-Shilpa. 3
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, the complainant's daughter-Shilpa was given in marriage to the son of the accused in the year 2010 and she is having a daughter and a son. After one month of the marriage, the petitioner, being the mother-in-law of the deceased, always used to pick up quarrel with the deceased, abuse her and instigating her son to quarrel with his daughter. In this regard, there was panchayat held in the presence of the elders. They have advised the accused, but in spite of the same, the accused continuously used to harass the daughter-in-law stating that she was not good daughter-in-law to their family and not able to do the household work properly and due to continuous harassment, his daughter committed suicide by hanging to a ceiling fan on 29-6-2015 at 12 noon in the house of the accused.
4
4. After registering the case, the Police conducted inquest panchanama. Thereafter, the body was sent to autopsy. It was confirmed that the deceased died to suicidal hanging. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the petitioner. The petitioner was released on bail and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and after appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court, she filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharging her from the charges. The trial Judge, after considering the material on record, dismissed the application. Hence, this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no strong allegation against the petitioner for having committed the offences either punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C., or under Section 306 of the I.P.C. As all the witnesses spoken about 5 untoward incident prior to the suicide and all the witnesses gave the omnibus statements, it is only vague statements. Specifically, none of the witnesses have stated anything about any demand of dowry or physical harassment. Even the son of the accused, i.e. the husband of the deceased, was not examined as witness and not made as one of the accused by the Police. Therefore, framing of charges against this petitioner under Section 306 of the I.P.C. is unwarranted. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well this Court, which is discussed below. Hence, he prayed for discharging the petitioner.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the evidence of the brother, sister, aunty, uncle and cousins of the deceased have categorically stated that the accused used to quarrel 6 with the deceased frequently and was abusing her stating that she was not a fit daughter-in-law to her house and not able to do the household work properly and on the date of incident, the accused was in the house, she has to explain what transcribed between the accused and the deceased. The neighbours and well wishers have given statements to the Police. However, the Court cannot appreciate the documents at this stage. There is sufficient material placed on record to frame the charges. The presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act is available in favour of the prosecution as the deceased committed suicide even prior to completion of seven years of marriage in the house of the in-laws. Therefore, he prayed for dismissing the revision petition.
7. Upon hearing the arguments, in respect of Sections 306 and 107 of the I.P.C., there are catena of 7 judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well this Court. Perused the material produced while dealing with the application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of SHAMABANU IMTIYAZ AHMED JAMBAGI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION, BENGALURU reported in 2018 (1) KCCR 28, wherein this Court remitted back the matter to the Sessions Judge for reconsidering the application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
8.1 In the case of GANGADHAR AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIMOGA reported in 2018 (3) KCCR 2731, wherein this Court acquitted the accused for the 8 offences punishable under Sections 306 and 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
8.2 In the case of STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENNAI v. S. SELVI AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2018 SC 81, wherein the Apex Court held while considering the application for discharge, the Court must proceed with presumption that material brought on record by prosecution are true and must evaluate such material with view to find out whether the facts disclose the existence of ingredients of offence.
8.3 In the case of GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in (2017) 1 SCC 433, the Apex Court held that in respect of abetment of suicide, the essential ingredients of offence under Section 107 of the Indian Evidence Act is necessary.
9
9. By keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and now coming to the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the deceased-Shilpa was given in marriage to the son of the accused. The marriage was held in the year 2010 and she died within seven years of marriage, i.e. on 29-6-2015. The deceased committed suicide by hanging to a ceiling fan in the in-laws house at 12 noon. As per the inquest panchanama, the deceased was last seen by the accused and also after the death, the accused was the first person said to have seen the deceased. Thereafter, the accused has informed the neighbours. Later, the complainant and his family members were informed. By the time the complainant and his family members came to the spot, the dead body was brought down and kept on the cot. The statements of the family members, i.e., parents, sister, sister's husband, brother, aunty and uncle of the deceased have categorically stated that 10 after one month of the marriage, the accused started abusing, harassing and scolding the deceased. Even after completion of five years of marriage, the accused continued to harass the deceased by abusing her.
10. C.W.17-Krishnappa, C.W.18-Nagarathnamma, C.W.19-Manjunath, C.W.20-Ramesh Kumar and C.W.21-Ravi Kumar, the neighbours of the accused, have stated that the accused used to always harass the deceased. In this regard, they have advised the accused to mend her ways not to harass the deceased and all of them have stated on par with the statements of the family members of the deceased. In order to attract Section 306 of the I.P.C., the punishment for abetment of suicide, there must be ingredients of abetment as required under Section 107 of the I.P.C. 11
11. Section 107 of the I.P.C. reads as follows:
"Abetment of a thing.-- A person abets in doing of a thing, who--
Firstly.-- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.-- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.-- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, in doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.-- A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.12
Explanation 2.-- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
12. A plain reading of the provisions, it requires three ingredients, i.e. there must be instigation to do that thing, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for doing of that thing, and thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, in doing of that thing. The explanation defines, whoever either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of the act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. The same is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case 13 of PRAVEEN PRADHAN v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL reported in 2012 (10) JT 478.
13. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reads as follows:
"113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.--When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same 14 meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
14. At this stage, it is worth to mention Section 498-A of the I.P.C., which reads as follows:
498-A: Husband or relative of husband or a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this Section, "cruelty" means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or 15
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
15. On bare reading of the Explanation (a) to Section 498-A of the I.P.C, which clearly states that any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman.
16. Further, the trial Court while passing the order also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PALWINDER SINGH v.
BALWINDER SINGH reported in 2009 (65) ACC 39 (SC), wherein it has held that marshalling and appreciation of the evidence at the time of framing of charge is not in the domain of the Court. 16
17. On perusal of the record, the statements of all the witnesses go to show that they have categorically stated the accused was quarreling with the deceased and always abusing her stating that she was not fit for her family; not a good daughter-in-law, not able to do the household work and panchayat was also held in this regard. Even in spite of birth of two children and after completion of five years of marriage, the accused did not stop harassing the daughter-in-law and admittedly, at the time of the incident, the accused was alone in the house and as per the statements of the witnesses, the accused herself informed the neighbours and the relatives. The deceased said to be bathed the child at 11:30 a.m., and the accused was sitting there and the deceased went inside the house and committed suicide. The accused herself saw the deceased and informed to the neighbours. Therefore, there is presumption 17 available to the prosecution under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. The accused, who is having personal knowledge, has to explain what transcribed between herself and the deceased soon before the incident as required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. This material is required to be considered by the trial Court only through full fledged trial. The trial Court cannot appreciate the statement before recording the evidence under the trial.
18. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any error or illegality committed by the trial Court in rejecting the application. Though there is no detailed reasons assigned in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, but that itself is not a ground to interfere and set aside the order under revision. There is sufficient material available on record through the statements of the witnesses and until impeaching their 18 evidence in the cross-examination, the Court cannot jump into the conclusion that there is no offence committed by the accused. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is sufficient material evidence available on record to frame the charges against the accused under Section 498-A and 306 of the I.P.C. The revision petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
The Registry is directed to intimate the trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE kvk