SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rameshbabu vs State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7288/2017

BETWEEN:

1. RAMESHBABU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O L ATE M.MARISWAMY,
STATION MASTER,
ARASIKER RAILWAY STATION,
RESIDENT OF NO.2567, K-30,
4TH CROS, 1ST MAIN,
HOSABANDIKERI, CHAMUNDIPURAM,
MYSURU-570004.

2. SMT PUTTAMMA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
W/O LATE M.MARISWAMY,
RESIDENT OF T.BETTAHALLI VILLAGE,
T.NARSIPURA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571124.

3. SUREKHA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
D/O LATE M.MARISWAMY,
RESIDENT OF T.BETTAHALLI VILLAGE,
T.NARSIPURA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571124.
2

4. MAHESHBABU @ BABU
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE M.MARISWAMY,
T.BETTAHALLI VILLAGE,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571124,

NOW RESIDING AT NO.2567, K-30,
4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
HOSABANDIKERI, CHAMUNDIPURAM,
MYSURU-570004.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI P NATARAJU, ADV.)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY TALAKADU POLICE STATION,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT PROSECUTOR,
BANGALORE-560001.

2. SMT. KOUSHALYADEVI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
W/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH,
R/AT SOSALE VILLAGE,
T.N.PURA TALUK,
MYSURU CITY – 571120.

NOW R/AT NO.182, 4TH MAIN,
JYOTHI SCHOOL OPPOSITE,
NIMISHAMBA NAGAR,
MYSURU – 570 023.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANDESH J CHOUTA, SPP – II FOR R1)
3

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYINGTO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MYSURU IN S.C.NO.249/2014 DATED 10.7.2017 ON
THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 216 OF CR.P.C. BY
ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and

perused the records.

2. The petitioners-accused were charged for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 201 read

with 34 of IPC in S.C.249/2014. After framing charges

for the said offences and also prosecution leading

evidence, some of the witnesses namely PWs-1, 2 and 3

have deposed before the Court that deceased has not

committed suicide, but actually the accused have

committed the murder of the deceased by assaulting and

pushing her into a river. On the basis of such evidence

before the court, the prosecutor has made application
4

under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. for framing of charges for

the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC also.

3. After hearing both the parties, the trial court

has passed an order of framing of charges under Section

302 of IPC along with other offences, which order is

called in question before this Court in the present

petition.

4. Ofcourse, the learned counsel for the

petitioners was right in submitting that the court should

have awaited for the evidence of the doctor, because

nowhere, the doctor has cited that it is a homicidal

death. On the other hand, the doctor has stated that the

death of the deceased was due to drowning.

5. Looking into the evidence of the witnesses,

this court has come to the conclusion that tentatively at

this stage, there is no need to interfere with the order

passed by the trial court. However, after examination of
5

all the witnesses, if the trial court feels it necessary for

alteration of the charges and if no allegations are

available against the petitioners for offence punishable

under Section 302 of IPC, then petitioners are at liberty

to move the trial court for alteration of the charges. If the

trial court after examination of the evidence and if such

application is filed by the petitioners, without being

influenced with the earlier order i.e., the present order,

the court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance

with law.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Rules of Group, If You agree then Message us on Above Number.

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh