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