Partly allowed

Angadi Parvathamma W/O Late Shankrappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2018CRL.RP/2020/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of two criminal revision petitions challenging discharge rejection orders under Section 306 IPC/Dowry Prohibition Act. Court examined supplementary handwriting reports and witness statements to determine prima facie material against specific accused before framing charges.

What did the court decide?

Crl.R.P. No.2020/2011 partly allowed; discharged accused No. 5 (Malle); dismissed Cr.R.P. No.2056/2011 against accused No. 1-4.

Angadi Parvathamma W/O Late Shankrappa Vs State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRL. R. P. NO.2020 OF 2011 C/W.

¶7

CRL. R. P. NO.2056 OF 2011

¶8

IN CRL.R.P. NO.2020/2011 :

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

ANGADI PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE SHANKRAPPA AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O TORANAGALLU VILLAGE, DIST. BELLARY

¶11

MALLESH ANGADI S/O ANGADI ANDANAPPA AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT R/O TORANAGALLI VILLAGE, DIST. BELLARY

¶12

GANGAMMA W/O MALLIKARJUNA GUTTI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O KUKANUR VILLAGE TQ. & DIST. KOPPAL

¶13

... PETITIONERS

¶14

(By Sri. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE )

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY TORANAGALLU PS, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶17

¶18

HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. 580 008.

¶19

J. ANAND KUMAR S/O J VEERUPAXAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. NO.18/1, W.NO.12, SINDAGI ONI REDDY BEEDI, BALLARI

¶20

... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDITIONAL SPP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. . SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2011 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY, IN S.C.NO.68/2010 THEREBY REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS UNDER SECTION 227 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND TO DISCHARGE THEM IN THE ABOVE CASE.

¶22

IN CRL.R.P. NO.2056/2011 BETWEEN:

¶23

ANGADI SHANKRAMMA W/O ANDANAPPA AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: TORANAGALLU VILLAGE, BELLARY.

¶24

ANGADI ANDANAPPA S/O SHANKARAPPA AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: TORANAGALLU VILLAGE, BELLARY.

¶25

ANGADI SHANKARA S/O ANDANAPPA AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: TORANAGALLU VILLAGE, BELLARY.

¶26

ANGADI BASAVARAJ S/O ANDANAPPA AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: TORANAGALLU VILLAGE, BELLARY.

¶27

... PETITIONERS

¶28

(By Sri. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE )

¶29

¶30

AND:

¶31

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TORANAGALLU POLICE STATION REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. 580 008.

¶32

J. ANAND KUMAR, S/O J. VEERUPAXAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. NO.18/1, W.NO.12, SINDAGI ONI REDDY BEEDI, BALLARI

¶33

... RESPONDENTS

¶34

(By Sri. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDITIONAL SPP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 . SRI. SANTHOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SEEKING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 11.01.2011 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY, IN S.C.NO.68/2010 THEREBY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS UNDER SECTION 227 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND TO DISCHARGE THEM FROM THE OFFENCES LEVELED AGAINST THEM.

¶36

THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Crl.R.P. No.2020/2011 is filed by accused

¶39

No.5, 6 and 7 and Crl.R.P. No.2056/2011 is filed by accused No.1 to 4 in Sessions Case No.68/2010

¶40

on the file of the Court of Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Ballari, challenging the order

¶41

¶42

dated 11.01.2011 thereby rejecting the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the case.

¶43

The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased namely Shilpa was given in marriage to accused No.3 on 07.12.2008. At the time of marriage a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- and four tolas of gold was given to the bridegroom as dowry and apart from that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was given for other expenses. Accused No.3 was working as Finance and Accounts Manager in one Zindal Power Plant situated in Rathnagiri. After the marriage

¶44

the deceased started residing in the parental house situated in Toranagallu village. The aforesaid dowry amount was demanded about 20 days prior to the marriage by accused No.3 and it was handed over to accused No.2 in the presence of accused No.3. Inspite of the said dowry being paid to the accused, the accused persons not

¶45

¶46

satisfied with the same were ill-treating the deceased. On 27.06.2009 at about 6.30 a.m. accused No.2 i.e., father-in-law of the deceased informed the complainant over phone that his sister is serious and when the complainant and others went to Toranagallu village, to the house of the accused, they saw that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. Further, on the left forehand of the deceased there was a suicide note written implicating the mother-in-law, father-inlaw, brother-in-law, grand mother and sister-inlaw of the deceased as the cause for the incident. It is the further case of the prosecution that all the accused were ill-treating the deceased to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and they were giving physical and mental torture and unable to bear the same, the deceased, namely Shilpa, committed suicide by hanging in her matrimonial house between 10.00 p.m. of 26.06.2009 and 5.00 a.m. of 27.06.2009.

¶47

¶48

Charge sheet was filed against accused No.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶49

The accused No.1 to 7 filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court seeking their discharge and the rejection of the same has been assailed in the present criminal revision petitions.

¶50

I have heard Sri. Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.V.M. Banakar, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri. Santhosh B. Mane , learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶51

¶52

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the entire family members of accused No.3 have been implicated by the complainant in this case. The husband of the deceased namely Angadi Shankara is working in Rathnagiri which is near Mumbai and there are no allegations of demand and acceptance of dowry. He further contended that accused No.4 and 5, the brothers-in-law of the deceased and accused No.6, the sister-in-law of the deceased, are also falsely implicated. Accused No.6, the sister-in-law is married and staying separately at Kukanoor of Koppal taluk and accused No.5, a student was pursuing his studies in Bangalore.

¶53

It is further submitted that the deceased

¶54

was suffering from tuberculosis and asthma and on account of the same she might have committed suicide and there is no illtreatment or harassment whatsoever meted out to her by the accused

¶55

¶56

persons. He has also submitted that a private opinion was taken with regard to the hand writing found on the forearm of the deceased and according to the said report the opinion furnished by FSL, Bangalore, is not complete as per the requirements of a scientific report, and therefore, no reliance can be given on such incomplete opinion. Hence, he submitted that there are no material to frame charges against the accused/petitioners herein and accordingly seeks to set aside the impugned order and to discharge the accused.

¶57

Per contra, learned Additional State Public

¶58

Prosecutor contended that the names of all the accused persons finds a place in the First Information Report and after thorough investigation, charge sheet was filed. The investigation material discloses that all these accused persons were giving physical and mental

¶59

¶60

harassment to the deceased by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/from her

¶61

parental house and this was being informed by the deceased to her parents and her brother i.e., the complainant. The trial Court, after examining the material available on record, has rightly dismissed the application seeking discharge. He would further contend that according to FSL report, the handwriting found on the left fore arm of the deceased tallied with the admitted hand writing of the deceased and the report clearly states that there are similarities in the general writing habits of questioned and the standard writings.

¶62

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 while supporting the impugned order contended that accused No.3, husband of the deceased demanded dowry amount to be paid well in advance and there are specific averments in the FIR that the said dowry was paid. He

¶63

¶64

further submitted that the statements of the witnesses implicate all the accused persons. As such, there is sufficient material to frame charge and accordingly seeks to dismiss the petitions.

¶65

I have examined the material on record and the impugned order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶66

At the outset, it is relevant to note here that accused No.7, the grandmother of accused No.3 died during the pendency of this petition, as such case against accused No.7 stands abated.

¶67

It is evident from the order that the learned Judge after considering the material on record including the statements of the relevant witnesses, namely CWs.2 to 4 and 7 and also the FSL report with regard to the handwriting found on

¶68

¶69

the left arm and palm of the deceased, opined that there are sufficient grounds to frame charge against the accused persons.

¶70

On a careful examination of the material

¶71

on record, it is seen that, initially, FIR was lodged against all the accused persons and the handwriting on the fore arm of the deceased implicated mother-in-law, father-in-law, brotherin-law, grand mother and sister-in-law of the deceased. However, the name of accused No.5 namely Mallesh Angadi, who is one of the brothers-in-law of the deceased, is not forthcoming in the statements of any of the witnesses, which is not disputed by the respondents. The writing on the left fore arm of the deceased refers to “brother-in-law”. However, the deceased has two brothers-in-law who are accused No.4 namely Angadi Basavaraj and accused No.5-Mallesh Angadi. The statement of

¶72

¶73

the mother of the deceased by name G.V. Sharadamma-CW-2 would disclose that when she enquired the deceased regarding the ill-treatment caused to her by the accused, she informed that her parents-in-law, brother-in-law-Angadi Basavaraj, her sister-in-law-Gangamma and grand mother Parvathamma were ill-treating her for not bringing sufficient dowry. The said statement of the mother also does not implicate the name of accused No.5-Mallesh Angadi. Admittedly, the said accused was pursuing his studies in Bangalore at the relevant point of time.

¶74

Learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend placing reliance on the subsequent report issued by a private expert with regard to the handwriting found on the left forearm of the deceased that no reliance can be placed on the FSL report obtained by the prosecution. He would further submit that the Handwriting Expert

¶75

¶76

by examining the photocopy of the handwriting on the left hand of the deceased as well as the photo copy of the handwriting in the complaint, has opined that the said writings are written by one and the same person. According to the learned counsel, the writing on the forearm and palm of the deceased is the work of the complainant. However, the prosecution relies on the opinion given by the FSL Madiwala, Bangalore, wherein, the opinion is given to the effect that the hand writing on the fore arm of the deceased matched with the admitted handwriting of the deceased which was collected and compared by the expert.

¶77

At this stage, this Court cannot go into the correctness of either of the reports as it is a matter for trial. If at all the accused wants to rely upon the expert’s report, they are at liberty to produce the same as defence evidence. However, considering the entire material on record, it is

¶78

¶79

seen at this stage that there are prima facie material insofar as accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 are concerned and there are no prima facie material as against accused No.5 so as to proceed against him. As already noticed, accused No.7 has died during the pendency of this Criminal Revision Petition. A copy of the death extract has been produced by the petitioners’ counsel. As such, the case against accused No.7-Parvatamma stands abated. Hence, I pass the following order:

¶80

Criminal Revision Petition No.2020 of 2011 is partly allowed. The order dated 11.01.2011 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bellary, in S.C. No.68 of 2010, is set aside insofar as accused No.5-Mallesh Angadi is concerned. Accused No.5 is discharged. The revision petition insofar as accused No.6Gangamma is dismissed. Case against accused No.7 is abated.

¶81

¶82

Criminal Revision Petition No.2056 of 2011

¶83

filed by accused No.1 to 4 is dismissed.

¶84

The observations made herein is confined to

¶85

the disposal of this revision petition.

¶86

Sd/JUDGE

¶87

hnm & kmv

Angadi Parvathamma W/O Late Shankrappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angadi Parvathamma W/O Late Shankrappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Iqbal Ahammad Mulla S/O Amminsab Mulla Vs Karnataka Lokayuktha

M. Chinnappa Vs State of Karnataka

Prakash S/O. Ningappa Teli Vs the State of Karnataka

Angadi Shankramma W/O Andanappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.L.G. Guruvayyanavar, Vs the Lotus Education Society

Gangamma @ Lalith W/O Manjappa Ganiger Vs State of Karnataka