SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Hanumanthappa vs State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2013

Karnataka High Court Hanumanthappa vs State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2013Author: H.S.Kempanna

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6857/2013

BETWEEN

HANUMANTHAPPA

S/O. MUNIVENKATAPPA

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

RESIDENT OF

C/O. ENKATESHAPPA’S HOUSE

BILLAPURA VILLAGE

SARJAPURA HOBLI

ANEKAL TALUK

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. – 563 101. … PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAJANNA M.V., ADV.,)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY SARJAPURA POLICE STATION

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING

BANGALORE – 560 001.

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.B.VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)

CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.131/13 OF SARJAPURA P.S., BANGALORE DIST., AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.C.J., (JR.DN.), AND JMFC, ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL DIST., BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 498, 304B, R/W. 34 OF IPC AND 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT. 2

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

ORDER

The petitioner, who is arrayed as A.1 in C.C.No.765/2013 on the file of JMFC, Anekal, registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 304(B) of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, 1961, is before this Court praying for releasing him on bail.

2. It is the case of the prosecution, the deceased R.Pawana is the daughter of the complainant – Rajendra. They hail from Reddy community. The deceased was MBA graduate and had completed her degree in the year 2007. After completing the degree she was working as lecturer in Reddy Jana Sangha College situated at Koramangala. It is alleged, while she was going for work, she fell in love with this petitioner and on 3

19.3.2008 without informing him or his family members got married in a temple. Thereafter, on enquiry the complainant came to know that the petitioner hails from Dhobi community. Thereafter, the deceased Pawana was not in contact with the family of the complainant. Two years later she started visiting their house and at that time she used to stay for 1 or 2 days and return to her husband’s house. The petitioner was not talking to them. The deceased and the accused have a child by name Yukthi who is aged about 4 years. When the deceased had come to the house recently she complained that she is being subjected to cruelty and harassment on the ground of demand for dowry by the petitioner, as otherwise she would be killed. On 11.4.2013 she called on the complainant and told him that her husband has directed her not to go to her parents house as she would not bring dowry and in that connection, they are subjecting 4

her to cruelty and harassment and therefore she is not willing to come for ensuing Ugadi festival. On 21.4.2013 he made a call to the deceased along with his wife at about 6.30 p.m, but there was no response. Within 15/20 minutes later the deceased herself called on them and on enquiry she revealed, that she is being subjected to cruelty and harassment on the ground of demand for dowry. Such being the position, on 22.4.2013 the deceased being unbearable of the cruelty and harassment meted out to her by the accused in the case committed suicide by hanging in the house of the accused. On being informed by her husband about the death of their daughter, they went and saw the dead body in Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. Their deceased daughter has committed suicide on account of the accused subjecting her to cruelty and harassment on the ground of demand for dowry, as 5

such they have committed the aforementioned offences.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, A.2 and A.3 in the case who are parents of this petitioner have been released on bail by the Jurisdictional Sessions Judge. He further submits, the petitioner and the deceased had fallen in love with each other while they are prosecuting their studies in degree course. Thereafter both of them got married on 7th November, 2004 and their marriage was registered in the office of Sub- registrar situated at Kengeri on 10th December, 2004. In support of the same he has placed the original certificate of marriage before me along with memo today. He submits, this certificate would indicate that the marriage of the deceased with the petitioner has taken place on 7.11.2004. The death of the deceased has taken place on 22.4.2013 i.e. 6

beyond seven years after the marriage and thereby the offence under Section 304(B) of IPC is not attracted to the case. He further submits, even taking that the deceased has committed suicide in the house of the accused on the ground of demand for dowry, the offence at best amounts to Section 306 of IPC, which is not punishable with extreme penalty. The petitioner is in custody since 23.4.2013, very next day of the death of his wife. He is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Having regard to the facts of this case, as the offence now made out is not punishable with extreme penalty of death or imprisonment for life, in the circumstances, he be released on bail.

4. Application filed by the petitioner is opposed by the State.

5. The certificate of registration of the marriage now produced before me reveals that the 7

marriage of the deceased with the petitioner has taken place on 7.11.2004. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner having regard to the date of the marriage and the date of occurrence i.e. 22.4.2013, since the death has taken place beyond seven years of the marriage, Section 304(B) does not get attracted to the case. Despite the same, since she has committed suicide in the house of the accused and taking the allegations as it is, as the accused abated her to commit suicide, the offence falls under Section 306 of IPC, which is not punishable with extreme penalty. The other offences are Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, 1961. Parents of the petitioner have already been enlarged on bail by the Jurisdictional Sessions Judge. He is in custody since 23.4.2013. Final report is filed. Under these circumstances, I do not find any justification to decline the request of 8

the petitioner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Committal Magistrate or Court of Sessions if the case is committed, subject to the following conditions:-

1. He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

2. He shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SA

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation