Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 514 (KAR)

PARASHURAM v. STATE BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2006-06-23

B.S.PATIL

body2006
ORDER This revision petition arises out of an order dated 22-5-2006 passed by the Fast Track Court I, Koppal in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2004 dismissing the application filed by the accused-revision petitioners herein under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contending that the Sessions Court (Fast Track Court) at Koppal, did not have jurisdiction to try the case. 2. The Gangavathi Police charge-sheeted the revision petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 504, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is alleged that accused 1 being the husband of deceased Shivaleela, the daughter of the complainant had deserted his wife, whereupon, she was residing in her parental house at Mujawar camp, Gangavathi. Later on accused 1 took a second wife who was none other than the daughter of accused 2. Accused 1 entertained an apprehension that his first wife Shivaleela may file a petition for maintenance and even seek rights in the immovable properties belonging to him and in order to avoid these consequences a conspiracy was hatched by accused 1 to 3 and in furtherance of the same accused 1 took his first wife Shivaleela to Cheekalaparvi river and assaulted her with a stone with the help of accused 2 and 3 and threw her body in the middle of the river so as to destroy the evidence of murder. It is relevant to note here that earlier a missing complaint was filed before the Gangavathi Police by the mother of the deceased. The mother had also petitioned to the higher authorities requesting to trace her daughter. 3. It is further found from the allegations made in the complaint and the charge-sheet filed that about 15 days prior to filing of the complaint before the Gangavathi Police accused 1 came along with his friend accused 3 on a motor-cycle to the house of complainant situated at Mujawar Camp and abused her in filthy language and threatened her stating that if she were to report again to the police, he would not spare her life and would kill her as he did to his wife. 4. The case came to be committed to the District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, who in turn transferred the matter to the Fast Track Court for disposal. 4. The case came to be committed to the District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, who in turn transferred the matter to the Fast Track Court for disposal. When the matter was set down for framing of the charges against the accused, the accused revision petitioners filed an application styling it to be an application under Section 177 of the Cr. P.C. contending inter alia that the Court at Kappal had no jurisdiction to conduct the trial as the offence did not take place at Gangavathi within the local limits of Kappal Court. The revision petitioners asserted that the alleged offence is said to have taken place on the Bank of Cheekalaparvi river which is situated in Manvi Taluk of Raichur District and therefore it was the Court at Raichur which had the jurisdiction to try the case and not the Sessions Court at Koppal. 5. Upon hearing the accused and the State Public Prosecutor, the Court below has dismissed the application holding that the averments made in the complaint, the statement of the witnesses and the confessional statement of the accused revealed that in consequence of a conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased, accused 1 had taken the deceased to Cheekalaparvi river by calling her over telephone on 10-1-2001 stating that he was ready to lead a happy married life with her. They both spent a night at Kamool Tata Darga in Gangavathi and on the next day morning they went to Manvi by bus and thereafter the murder of the deceased at Cheekalaparvi river took place. Referring to the provisions contained under Section 179 of the Cr. P.C., the Court below has held that the offence could be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose jurisdiction certain acts are done or within whose jurisdiction the consequences have ensued amounting to an offence. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners Sri Kareddy vehemently contends that Section 179 has no application to the facts of the present case. It is his submission that in order to attract the provisions of Section 179 where a thing is done in one place and the consequence is ensued in another place, it must be proved that the thing done in one place must independently be capable of being characterised as an offence. It is his submission that in order to attract the provisions of Section 179 where a thing is done in one place and the consequence is ensued in another place, it must be proved that the thing done in one place must independently be capable of being characterised as an offence. If the thing done by itself is not an offence and can only become an offence after the consequence ensued, then the Court within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed can try the case and not where simple acts not amounting to offence are committed. He further submits that unless the thing done itself directly results in the consequence that ensued the Court where mere unrelated acts are committed cannot assume jurisdiction. 7. Sri Girji, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Suresh Kaushal and Another1, submits that in the instant case both the Courts namely the Court at Kappal and the Court at Raichur have jurisdiction in the matter as some of the acts are committed within the jurisdictional limits of Koppal Court and the result has ensued in the local limits of Raichur Court. He has also brought to the notice of the Court the provisions contained under Section 178 particularly Section 178(d) to contend that where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into by a Court having jurisdiction over any such local areas. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and upon careful perusal of the materials on record, the point that arises for consideration in this petition is: "Whether the Sessions Court at Koppal has jurisdiction to try the offence alleged against the accused-revision petitioners?" 9. A reading of the complaint and the charge-sheet filed by the police would disclose that a missing complaint was lodged by the mother before Gangavathi Police way back complaining that her daughter was missing. This was followed by several petitions filed by her to the police officers requesting them to trace her daughter. A reading of the complaint and the charge-sheet filed by the police would disclose that a missing complaint was lodged by the mother before Gangavathi Police way back complaining that her daughter was missing. This was followed by several petitions filed by her to the police officers requesting them to trace her daughter. It is thereafter on 23-6-2004, she has filed the complaint stating that accused 1 had come to her house and threatened her of dire consequences and she would also be finished as he had done in respect of his wife if she were to file any more complaint to the police. In this complaint, the complainant has stated about the' alleged conspiracy hatched by accused 1 to 3 to finish her daughter. It is further alleged in the complaint that the deceased was called over telephone and she was asked to come to Kurnool Tata Darga which is part of Gangavathi Town falling within the jurisdiction of Kappal Court. It is there, near that Darga Katta that they are alleged to have spent a night and thereafter she was taken to a park in Manvi and from there she was taken to Cheekalaparvi river where she is allegedly killed by throwing a stone on her head and the dead body was thrown into the river. It is thus clear from the facts as emerge from the complaint and the charge-sheet filed that several acts are done before the final act culminating in the murder of the deceased took place, some of them being the conspiracy hatched and the deceased being solicited to come and join accused 1 at Kurnool Tata Darga. The deceased was taken away from Gangavathi. A missing complaint was filed by the mother of deceased at Gangavathi. Therefore, if part of the offence namely calling her to Kurnool Tata Darga and thereafter taking her to Manvi enroute to the place where she was killed as a result of a conspiracy hatched has occurred in Kappal jurisdiction as rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader both the Courts would get jurisdiction to try the offence. 10. Therefore, if part of the offence namely calling her to Kurnool Tata Darga and thereafter taking her to Manvi enroute to the place where she was killed as a result of a conspiracy hatched has occurred in Kappal jurisdiction as rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader both the Courts would get jurisdiction to try the offence. 10. The intention of the Legislature as is discernible by a perusal of Section 179 is that when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. The contention urged by the learned Counsel Sri Rareddy that the things or acts dope must themselves amount to independent offence de hors the consequence cannot be accepted because the conjunction 'and' used in the section between the expression 'when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done' and the expression 'of a consequence which has ensued', suggests that the act contemplated here becomes of an offence on account of the cumulative effect of the things done and the consequences ensued. Therefore, it is not necessary to prove that the things done must themselves, be offences under any of the provisions of the IPC. 11. It is also useful to refer to Section 178(d) wherein, it is stated that where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Here, in the instant case, the offence consists of several acts done in the local limits of Koppal as also in the local limits of Raichur. Some acts are done at Kurnool Tata Darga in the limits of Gangavathi town and some others at Manvi and thereafter at Cheekalaparvi river. Therefore, the Court at Koppal also has got jurisdiction to try the offence. For the foregoing, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the Court below dismissing the application filed does not call for interference. The revision petition, therefore stands dismissed. Therefore, the Court at Koppal also has got jurisdiction to try the offence. For the foregoing, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the Court below dismissing the application filed does not call for interference. The revision petition, therefore stands dismissed. However, the observations made by this Court in the course of the order are confined only for the disposal of the question pertaining to jurisdiction and shall not ~n any manner be taken as expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter.