Karnataka High Court Mr. P.S. Parashivamurthy vs State By Srirangapatna Police on 25 March, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1343/2014
S/O SRI P.S.SRIDHAR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT PALAHALLI VILLAGE
PIN CODE:571 606
(BY SRI.C.R.GOPALASWAMY, ADV.)
STATE BY SRIRANGAPATNA POLICE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR. NO.65/2013 OF SRIRANGAPATNA P.S., MANDYA, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 304B, 504 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent – police station Crime No.65/2013.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that the allegations with regard to payment of dowry and further demand for dowry, these are all the subsequent developments and during the lifetime of the deceased no such allegations are made nor there was any complaint. Learned counsel made the submission that about 7-8 months earlier to the alleged incident deceased lost her 3
father and she was mentally disturbed, that may be the reason for the deceased to consume poison and commit suicide. Learned counsel also submitted that petitioner is working as conductor in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. He made further submission that now investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed, hence, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner can be admitted to bail.
4. As against this, the learned HCGP during the course of his arguments submitted that, looking to the averments in the complaint, it clearly goes to show that at the time of marriage gold ornaments and cash were given to the present petitioner. He also made the submission that the allegations made in the complaint goes to show that the petitioner and other family members used to give ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased, both physically and mentally and insisting her to bring more dowry amount from her parental place. He also made the submission that death has taken place within seven years from the date 4
of marriage and it has happened when the deceased was leading her marital life in the house of the petitioner. Hence, learned HCGP made the submission that it is not a case for the grant of bail to present petitioner/accused No.1. Hence, he submitted that the bail petition may be rejected.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, order passed by the lower Court on the bail application of the present petitioner. I have also perused the charge sheet material produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with the petition. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint, the brother of the deceased lodged the complaint, wherein it is alleged that at the time of marriage engagement of his sister with the petitioner there was a demand for dowry of Rs.2 Lakhs cash and 200 grams of gold and as per the demand made by them in the presence of the elders of the village, a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs and 175 grams of gold ornaments were given. The complaint also goes to show that after the marriage, 5
only for two months the sister of the complainant was properly treated by the petitioner and his family members and afterwards they have started giving ill- treatment and they were insisting her to bring the amount from her parental place. The death has taken place within seven years, is not in dispute and it has also taken place in the house of the petitioner when the deceased was leading her marital life along with the petitioner. There is a clear averment made in the complaint that because of the continuous cruel ill- treatment given by the petitioner and his family members and when it became untolerable the deceased consumed the poison and committed suicide, it goes to show that she was subjected to ill-treatment and prima- facie goes to show that as the petitioner abetted the commission of the offence, she consumed the poison and committed suicide. Therefore, the initial presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act will come into play. Learned counsel made the submission that it is a matter for trial. Even then, while 6
considering the prima-facie material of the bail petition, these aspects are also relevant factors. The materials placed by the prosecution by way of statement of other witnesses also goes to show and supports the case of the prosecution that there was ill-treatment meted out to the deceased in connection with bringing the dowry amount. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on record and the petitioner being the husband of the deceased, who is responsible for the death of the deceased. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the present petitioner. Accordingly, petition is rejected. Sd/-