Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1239 (KAR)

Giddappa v. State of Karnataka

2015-11-09

A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

body2015
ORDER : A.V. Chandrashekara, J. 1. This revision petition is filed under Section 397, Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed on 8.4.2013 passed by the judge of Fast Track Court-14, Bengaluru City, in S.C.1372/12. 2. An application which had been filed under Section 227, Cr.P.C. on behalf of these petitioners who are accused Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and the same came to be dismissed after contest. It is this order which is called in question in this petition on various grounds as set out in the memorandum of revision petition. 3. Charge sheet is filed against 7 persons for the offences punishable Sections 498A, 304A, I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. At the time of hearing arguments in regard to framing of charge, an application was moved under Section 227, Cr.P.C. to discharge the above said accused, i.e. Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. It is contended that the allegation made against them is without any basis and that no case is made out to proceed further in order to frame charge for any of the offences mentioned in the charge. It is argued that there is absolutely no material to indicate the harassment meted out to the deceased by the petitioners and consequential unnatural death of the deceased who was the wife of accused No. 1 and daughter-in-law of the 1st petitioner. It is stated that accused Nos. 5 to 7 have been residing separately and their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. are vague and general in nature. 4. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor had filed objections opposing the application. 5. Learned judge has dismissed the application by framing the following point for consideration: "Whether accused Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 have made out grounds to discharge them?" 6. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the deceased girl-Deepika was solemnized on 18.3.2009 as per the customs of Hindu community. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, demand was made by all the accused herein asking the father of the deceased (CW1) to give dowry and he had given several gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- as dowry had spent Rs. 10,00,000/- to perform the marriage. It is alleged that after the marriage of Deepika with the 1st accused, accused Nos. 5,00,000/- as dowry had spent Rs. 10,00,000/- to perform the marriage. It is alleged that after the marriage of Deepika with the 1st accused, accused Nos. 5 to 7 started harassing her and encouraged the 1st accused and his parents to bring additional dowry. Being unable to withstand the torture meted out to her, she committed suicide. 7. In the first information, CW-1 has made the allegation that at the time of marriage, he gave gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the 1st accused as dowry and later on accused Nos. 2 to 6 started demanding dowry along with the 1st accused. 8. P.Y. Srinivas-father of the deceased is the first informant. He has lodged the complaint on 21.3.2012. His further statement came to be recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. on 25.3.2012. He has specifically mentioned that the mother-in-law of his daughter and sisters-in-law, viz., Kokila and Roopa were treating her cruelly. He has even referred to the additional dowry demanded by the accused and paying the same to the 1st accused. In the last paragraph of his statement recorded on 25.3.2012, he has made a specific allegation, translation of which is as follows: 'Nagaraju (husband of deceased), Jayalakshmi (mother-in-law of deceased), Giddaiah (father-in-law), Appanna @ Appi-(brother-in-law), Kokila and Roopa (sisters-in-law) pressurized her for money and assaulted her physically and murdered her.' The statement of Shanthamma-mother of the deceased is a replica of the statement of her husband. 9. Smt. Meenakshi is a neighbour and her statement came to be recorded on 8.5.2012. She has specifically stated to the police that Deepika's sister-in-law, Kokila, Roopa and their respective husbands were often coming to the house of Deepika and there used to be galata in their house and she used to hear weeping sound of Deepika whenever they came. 10. Mr. Shivalingaiah is a man known to the family of P.Y. Srinivas since a long time. His statement was recorded on 26.3.2002. He was present when the talks took place in connection with the marriage of Deepika with the 1st accused. He has deposed about the presence of all these 1st accused at that time and the demand made for dowry and receipt of Rs. 5,00,000/- and gold ornaments as dowry. These aspects have been considered by the trial court while sifting the evidence in order to see whether there are any grounds to proceed further. 11. He has deposed about the presence of all these 1st accused at that time and the demand made for dowry and receipt of Rs. 5,00,000/- and gold ornaments as dowry. These aspects have been considered by the trial court while sifting the evidence in order to see whether there are any grounds to proceed further. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision rendered by the Hon'ble apex court reported in the case of RAMESH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2005 AIR SCW 1319). As per the facts of the said case, the married sister of the victim's husband was permanently residing in her husband's house and came only occasionally. The allegation against her that she directed the complainant to wash W.C. and some times made some imputations against her do not amount to harassment with a view to coercing her or her relative to meet an unlawful demand for any property.' 12. But in the present case, the statements of material witnesses do indicate that the sisters and brothers-in-law of the 1st accused were often coming to his house and all of them were ill-treating the victim-Deepika and were exhorting the 1st accused to harass her for bringing additional dowry. It is not that they are roped in because they are close relatives of the 1st accused or the deceased. Specific overt acts have been attributed in their statements in regard to their presence when the marriage talks took place and the demand and receipt for dowry, and also of married sisters and their husbands often coming to the house of the 1st accused and disturbances going on at that time and Deepika crying loudly. 13. It is too premature to disbelieve all the materials placed on record. Suffice to state that the materials placed on record are sufficient to frame appropriate charges against the accused depending on their role. Thus no good grounds are made out to interfere with the well considered order. 14. In the case of SURYAKANT DADASAHEB BITALE v. DILIP BAJRANG KALE AND ANOTHER ( [2014] 3 SCC 496), the Hon'ble apex court has held that interference in revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397, 401 and 378, Cr.P.C. is limited. Thus no good grounds are made out to interfere with the well considered order. 14. In the case of SURYAKANT DADASAHEB BITALE v. DILIP BAJRANG KALE AND ANOTHER ( [2014] 3 SCC 496), the Hon'ble apex court has held that interference in revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397, 401 and 378, Cr.P.C. is limited. What is held in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL ( [2014] 3 SCC 634) is that the revisional jurisdiction does not create any right in favour of the litigant and the provision only empowers to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognized principles of criminal jurisprudence. 15. In this view of the matter, no good grounds are made out to interfere with the well considered order passed by the learned trial judge. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. Office to send a copy of this order to the trial court to frame appropriate charges depending upon the role of each accused and to commence trial at the earliest.