Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1059 (KAR)

Suresh v. VS State By Mahadevapura P. S.

2019-06-03

S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV

body2019
JUDGMENT : S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, J. The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail with respect to his detention in Crime No.1/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 306 read with Sections 34, 37 and 109 of IPC. 2. The facts that are made out in the complaint is that the complainant was residing with her daughter Ms.Dharani.S, who was a practising advocate who belongs to Adi Dravida caste. It is stated that the complainant's neighbour including the petitioner used to abuse the complainant and were harassing her with an intention of grabbing her property. It is further stated that the complaint had been lodged previously against the petitioner and other accused in Crime No.441/2018 and almost contemporaneously a counter compliant was also lodged in Crime No.442/2018 against the deceased and the complainant. 3. It is stated that on 31.12.2018, the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased and her mother and abused them leading to an altercation. It is alleged that the deceased suffered mental trauma after the altercation and was depressed. At about 7:30 p.m., in the evening when the complainant was in the shop, allegedly the accused came near the shop and abused the complainant and her daughter. It is stated that the deceased went inside the house and subsequently when the complainant went into the house she found that the deceased had hung herself and died. Complaint came to be lodged in Crime No.1/2019 for the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989. 4. The Investigating Authority on completion of the investigation has filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 306 read with Sections 34, 37 and 109 of IPC. 5. It is the case of the prosecution that the neighbouring property belonging to the deceased and her mother was purchased by the Govardhangiri, relative of the petitioner who had constructed the building without leaving setback, affecting the interest of the complainant and deceased who had retained the adjacent property and hence there were differences and also altercation between the said Govardhangiri and the complainant and her daughter. It is further stated that the complainant had a petty shop and was carrying on business, while the accused Nos.3 and 4 had shops opposite to the complainant's shop and that there was business rivalry amongst them leading to frequent altercations. The charge-sheet refers to various complaints received by the Police from the deceased and her mother in the background of the above facts. On the previous occasion, Crime No.441/2018 had come to be filed at the instance of the deceased and her mother. 6. The charge-sheet filed in the present case records the history of altercation in detail with references to incidents culminating in complaints by the complainant and her mother against the accused on 8.9.2017, 3.10.2017, 12.09.2018, 25.09.2018, 1.10.2018, 07.10.2018, 18.10.2018 and 21.11.2018. There is also a record with respect to telephonic complaints made by the complainant and her mother on nine occasions as is referred to in the charge-sheet. 7. The petitioner has been in custody since 22.03.2019. The charge-sheet has been filed on 29.03.2019. The learned Sessions judge has rejected the application of the petitioner by order dated 15.04.2019 observing that the release of the petitioner could result in threatening the complainant and witnesses while taking note of the gravity of the offences and possibility of tampering the prosecution witnesses. 8. The petitioner contends that, the only case made out against the accused was with respect to abetting the deceased to commit suicide. It is stated that there is no reference with respect to the presence of the petitioner at the scene of incident, and that the investigation is complete and that the statement of the 49 witnesses only speak about the fight between the other accused and the complainant's family and that the petitioner (accused No.6) is stated to have supported and instigated the accused. It is further stated that the records relating to CCTV camera installed on the direction by the police does not have any material to support the case of the prosecution that there was an incident of altercation as alleged on the said date. It is further stated that the ingredients of an offence under Section 306 is not made out and that the petitioner would co-operate with the trial. It is also stated that no prima facie is made out. It is further stated that the ingredients of an offence under Section 306 is not made out and that the petitioner would co-operate with the trial. It is also stated that no prima facie is made out. It is stated that the petitioner is ready and willing to be subjected to stringent conditions and may be enlarged on bail. 9. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand has contended that the complainant and the deceased had addressed a letter to the IGP, CRE Cell (SC/ST Atrocities), Chairman of Karnataka, State Women's Commission, Chairman of Karnataka State Human Rights Commission and has stated that she was being harassed and threatened to withdraw the earlier complaint made against the Corporator and other accused and has specifically stated that if anything would happen to her, the persons concerned are to be held responsible. The copy of the said letter has been produced along with the statement of objections filed. It is contended that the said letter should be treated as dying declaration and that 21 cases have been filed against the accused persons by the petitioner and out of desperation and hopelessness deceased has been driven to commit suicide. 10. It is further contended that the petitioner would be the beneficiary of the present situation including the death of the complainant's daughter and that it is by active instigation of the petitioner that the deceased was driven to suicide. It is contended that the petitioner being a Corporator wields enough power since he belongs to the ruling party of the State so as to influence the witnesses. Therefore, releasing the petitioner on bail would seriously prejudice the trial and that until the witnesses who have given their statement under Section 161 are examined or their statements are recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., there is every possibility that witnesses may turn hostile which shall prejudice the fair trial. 11. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been arrested only after the orders were passed in W.P. No.6067/2019. It is contended that the investigation itself has been compromised and defective charge-sheet has been filed without producing the letters of the petitioner including the letter dated 12.10.2018 which are incriminatory, which reflects on the extent of influence of the petitioner. It is stated that the deceased being from the weaker section of the society, her mother is vulnerable. 12. It is contended that the investigation itself has been compromised and defective charge-sheet has been filed without producing the letters of the petitioner including the letter dated 12.10.2018 which are incriminatory, which reflects on the extent of influence of the petitioner. It is stated that the deceased being from the weaker section of the society, her mother is vulnerable. 12. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 State also reiterates the contentions of respondent No.2. It is clear that the question as to whether the petitioner had abetted the deceased to commit suicide is clearly a matter to be established in trial taking note of scope of offence of abetment in light of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madanmohan Singh v. State of Gujarath and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628 and in the case of Randeep Singh and Another v. State of Punjab,2004 123 SCC 129, as the essence of the offences rest on the intention of the accused to aid/instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide which would only come out in trial. This is more so as the petitioner himself was not present at the scene of incident. 13. The offence has assumed public interest as the deceased was a lawyer and the Advocates' Association had initiated proceedings seeking for effective investigation by filing of a writ petition. The fact that accused No.6 as a Corporator belongs to the ruling party is sought to be made out as a relevant factor to be considered while considering grant of relief. The gravity of the offence does not stand altered merely by an enhanced interest of the public and the decision is to be taken on the basis of material available in the form of the charge-sheet that has already been filed. It is to be noted that investigation is complete and statement of witnesses are already recorded. The detailed charge-sheet that has been filed lists out the numerous complaints that have been filed by the deceased as referred to supra in the context of dispute between the other accused and the deceased and her mother on the other hand. It is to be noted that investigation is complete and statement of witnesses are already recorded. The detailed charge-sheet that has been filed lists out the numerous complaints that have been filed by the deceased as referred to supra in the context of dispute between the other accused and the deceased and her mother on the other hand. The role of accused No.6 can be ascertained only in trial, so also whether the petitioner was a mere instigator or had abetted the suicide of the deceased along with other accused is a matter that needs to be tried. The contention of the respondent No.2 that prima facie case has been made out in light of the letter of the deceased dated 12.10.2018 which is to be construed to be a dying declaration is also a matter to be established in trial, more so, observing at this stage the said letter does not form a part of the charge-sheet. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to evaluate the nature of evidence available. 14. The position of the petitioner being an elected representative, i.e., a Corporator does raise an apprehension as regards possibility of tampering of witnesses, however, such apprehension could be addressed by stringent conditions. Looking into the nature of the offences which are not punishable by imprisonment for life or death, situation could be addressed by conditions that can be imposed. 15. Though the learned counsel for respondent No.2 attempts to make out a case that investigation itself is defective, however, looking into the material placed before the Court and in the light of contentions advanced, it would not be appropriate to comment on the nature of the investigation and the correctness or otherwise of the final report filed. The Court at present cannot traverse beyond the charge-sheet that has been filed at this point of time. 16. The apprehension of tampering of witnesses cannot by itself lead to continuance of the petitioner in custody. Looking into the nature of offences and the totality of the facts stated above, there appears to be no justification for continuing detention of the petitioner. It is to be noted that proceedings regarding grant of bail cannot be construed to be proceedings for punishing the petitioner. Looking into the nature of offences and the totality of the facts stated above, there appears to be no justification for continuing detention of the petitioner. It is to be noted that proceedings regarding grant of bail cannot be construed to be proceedings for punishing the petitioner. Keeping in mind presumption of innocence which enures to the benefit of the petitioner, the very nature of the offence and what is attributed to the petitioner by itself does not make out a case for rejection of bail despite wide spread public attention. The order of the Sessions Court being noted, the learned Sessions Judge has laid emphasis on apprehension of tampering of the witnesses without necessarily appreciating the nature of offences and imputation made as regards the petitioner. 17. Accordingly, petition is allowed, subject to following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum before the concerned Court. (ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall be regular and shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth. (iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness. (iv) The petitioner shall physically present himself and mark his attendance before the concerned SHO once in every month till conclusion of trial. (v) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, howsoever minor, shall result in automatic cancellation of bail. 18. Taking note of the fact of the position of petitioner, it is hereby directed that the Deputy Commissioner of Police would afford such protection as may be deemed necessary when the witnesses and complainant approach for protection and take special measures whenever witnesses come to Court to tender evidence, including affording necessary escort.