Karnataka High Court
Smt.Suman Baburao Suryavanshi, vs State Of Karnataka, on 10 February, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 10th day of February 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
Criminal Petition No.100864/2016
BETWEEN
SMT.SUMAN BABURAO SURYAVANSHI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: HUGAR PLOT. BENGERI
HUBBALLI. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY WOMEN POLICE STATION
HUBLI-DHARWAD
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
2. MARUTHI BHARMAJI BHOSALE,
AGED: 58, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O DANDELI PAPER MILL,
AAJAD NAGAR, DANDELI. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1)
(R2 - PETITION DISMISSED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS
AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AND THE ORDER
DATED 04.03.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-II HUBBALLI IN CRIMINAL CASE
2
NO. 576 OF 2016 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZENCE FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A, 304B, 302,
323, 504, 506, 201 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3
AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent No.1-State.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo not pressing the petition against respondent No.1. Hence, the petition is dismissed against respondent No.2.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Perused the records.
4. The petitioner herein, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in S.C. No.86/2012, has approached this Court for quashing of the case registered against her in C.C. No.576/2016, as a split-up case, for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 323, 504, 506, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3
5. The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that on the complaint of the 2nd respondent herein, the police have registered a case in Crime No.46/2011 for the above said offences and they have investigated the matter and submitted a chargesheet for the above said offences before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The jurisdictional Magistrate has secured the presence of the accused and, after complying with the procedure under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. A sessions case was registered in S.C. No.86/2012 on the file I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli. In the said case, the petitioner herein is shown as accused No.2 and that she was split-up from the original case. It is also seen that in the said sessions case, accused Nos.1 and 3, by name Santosh and Deepak, were tried and, vide judgment dated 29.02.2016, accused Nos.1 and 3 were acquitted for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 323, 504, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is contended that the said 4 judgment has reached its finality as neither the State nor the de facto complainant have challenged the said judgment passed by the Trial Court. However, this petitioner was split-up, subsequently, a fresh case has been registered in C.C.No.576/2016 for the same offences and the Court has issued summons to the accused. It appears that she was arrested and thereafter, released on bail in C.C. No.576/2016. Now, the Magistrate has to commit the case to the Court of Sessions. At this juncture the present petition is filed.
6. The brief factual matrix of the case on hand is that the daughter of the complainant by name Suman was given in marriage to accused No.1-Santosh of Bengeri village in Hubballi. It is alleged that, at the time of marriage, two tolas of gold was given to accused No.1. It is alleged that for few days, after the marriage, the accused persons have looked after the deceased Suman with all love and affection and, thereafter, they started demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is further alleged that they threatened the said Suman with dire 5 consequences of killing her if she does not bring the dowry amount as demanded by them. In this background, it is alleged that on 01.11.2011, at about 7.40 p.m., another daughter of the complainant, by name Deepa, who was given in marriage to accused No.3, telephoned to complainant to rush to Hubballi and accordingly, they went their and saw the dead body of Smt. Suman. They came to know that accused Nos.1 and 2 poured kerosene on Suman, lit fire on her and committed murder of Smt. Suman. As the death had occurred within seven years of marriage, the police have not only registered the offence under Section 302 but also under Section 304 of IPC. After filing of the charge sheet and committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court framed charges and put accused Nos.1 and 3 on trial. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined 18 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 18 and marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.42 and produced a plastic can as material objection.
6
7. After appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and relying upon a decision of the Apex Court, the Sessions Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused, as such, acquitted accused Nos.1 and 3. The said judgment, as already stated, has attained a logical end.
8. Under the above said fact and circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the registration of fresh case in C.C.No.576/2016 on the same offences, on the ground that the petitioner was split-up from the original sessions case.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel that when the other accused, who stood on the same footing as that of the petitioner, were already been acquitted, even if the trial is allowed to be conducted against this petitioner, it would be a futile exercise and waste of judicial time and no purpose would be served, therefore, at this stage, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings pending before the jurisdictional Magistrate so that wasting of the valuable time of the Magistrate Court and Sessions Court can be 7 avoided. It is contended by the learned counsel that, the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses are not only against accused Nos.1 and 3, but also against accused No.2 and the said allegations are inseparable in nature. When the evidence of the said witnesses has already been appreciated, no other inference can be drawn against this petitioner on the same allegations. Hence, the learned counsel prays for quashing of the proceedings.
10. Before adverting to the legal position, I feel it just and necessary to note here that the Trial Court has framed points for consideration against the accused persons under Section 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which are as follows:
"1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that after the marriage of Smt. Suman with the first accused on 2.5.2005 there was demand for additional dowry and in this regard, she was harassed mentally and physically by the accused and thereby they have committed the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 8 504, R/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibiton Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond rasonable doubt that the accused with common intention subjected the deceased Smt. Suman to mental and physical cruelty demanding dowry and it was soon before her death and she died due to burn injuries on 4.11.2011 i.e. within seven years of her marriage and thereby the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 304B R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused with common intention subjected the deceased Smt. Suman to mental and physical cruelty demanding dowry and it was soon before her death and she died on 4.11.2011 i.e. within seven years of her marriage and the accused caused disapperance of evidence and murdered her by burning and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code?
The framing of the above said points for determination disclose that the common intention of all the accused persons has been the subject of framing of the charges.
The evidence has already been let in by the prosecution to 9 show common intention and in support of the said common intention, overt act, and after analyzing the evidence on record, the Sessions Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established the common intention with the offences alleged against accused Nos.1 and 3. Therefore, it goes without saying that allegations made against this petitioner and others are similar and inseparable in nature. Therefore, except the evidence already adduced before the Trial Court against accused Nos.1 and 3, there cannot be any other evidence available to lead against accused NO.2 the petitioner herein. As such, this Court has to see whether any purpose would be served if the Trial Court is allowed to proceed for trial against the present petitioner.
11. So far as the legal aspect is concerned, it is settled more than once by this Court and as well as by the Apex Court. It is worth to note here a decision of this Court in the case of Mohammed Iliyas Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2001(3) Kar. L.J. 551, wherein it is observed as under:10
"The petitioner is the accused in the case and he is shown to be the absconding. Therefore, the case against the petitioner was split up and charge-sheet was laid against other available accused Nos.1 and 3 for committing an offence punishable under Sections 498A and 307 IPC r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner was arrested and proceedings were revived against him in the split charge sheet... In the instant case also, the full pledged trial was held against accused Nos.1 to 3, in respect of the same offence. In the second round of trial against the petitioner, the evidence to be produced cannot be different from the one that was produced by the prosecution in the earlier case. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the proceeding is quashed."
12. In another ruling reported in AIR 2005 SC 268 between Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Akhilesh Singh, the Apex Court has held that:
"(A) Criminal Procedure Code Section 482 -
Quashing of charge and discharge of co-accused - Validity - Offence of criminal conspiracy and Murder - Main accused who had alleged to have hatched conspiracy and who had to have kill deceased was already discharged - That matter had attained finality - Discharge of co-accused by 11 High Court, by holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with case against co accused - Held proper.
(B) Quashing of charge and discharge of co- accused - Offence of criminal conspiracy and murder - Order of discharge passed against main the accused attaining finality".
13. In yet another decision reported in ILR 2005 KAR 1822 between State of Karnataka Vs. K.C.Narasegouda, this Court has observed in the following manner:
"As the case before the Sessions Judge is not a pending case, he cannot keep the file any longer pending nor he can close the case as he has to await appearance of the accused or the production by the State, for passing orders regarding undergoing sentence. As such, considering these peculiar facts and circumstances, it is deemed proper to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. instead of jurisdiction under Section 395 of Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice. As the entire material evidence of the prosecutions is one and the same, as against all the accused including the non-appealing accused No.1, who is said to be absconding, there is no second opinion that he is also entitled for the same benefit of 12 doubt as he is extended for his co-accused. Accused acquitted by giving benefit of doubt."
14. On perusal of the above said decisions of this Court and the Apex Court, on various occasions, it is held that, if on the basis of the same allegations, if the co- accused persons have already been tried and are acquitted, and when the allegations are inseparable in nature, if one of the accused is split-up subsequently and a separate chargesheet has been laid against him, the same benefit of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court would enure to the benefit of the other accused also who has been split up by the Court. It is very specifically noted in the above said decisions that the Court has to look into the entire material evidence relied upon by the prosecution, if it is the same evidence that can be projected against the split-up accused, then the benefit of such judgment has to be given to the split-up accused also. In view of the above said rulings, in my opinion, in this case, on a careful perusal of the entire materials on record, there is absolutely no allegations against this particular accused which is in contrast to the allegations 13 made against accused Nos.1 and 3. Even if the trial is allowed to be continued against this petitioner, it would be futile exercise and waste of judicial time. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any strong reason to continue the proceeding against this petitioner in C.C. No.576/2016, so that it can be nipped at the bud itself so as to avoid unnecessary judicial proceedings before the Trial Court and also wasting of valuable time of the court. hence, I proceed to pass the following Order:
Order The petition is allowed. Consequently, the split up chargesheet filed in C.C. No.576/2016 against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 323, 504, 506, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and all further proceedings thereof, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms