Dismissed

Sujata W/O Joseph v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2020CRL.RP/100043/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the rejection of a discharge application in a Section 306 IPC case. The court held that despite conflicting statements by a prosecution witness, there was no patent error or perversity in the lower order framing a charge based on grave suspicion.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Sujata W/O Joseph Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100043/2019

¶7

BETWEEN SUJATA W/O JOSEPH AGE: 45 YEARS, R/O: PECIFIC PARK, KUSUGAL, HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. (BY SRI.T R PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY P.S.I., KESHWAPUR P.S., HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD BENCH. (BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2018 PASSED BY THE I-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI, IN S.C.NO.123/2016 ON APPLICATION DATED 30.08.2018 FILED U/S 227 OF CR.P.C. AND ALLOW APPLICATION DATED 30.08.2018 FILED U/S 227 OF CR.P.C. FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER, FOR THE LEVELED CHARGE.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner stands trial for the offence

¶17

punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) in S.C.No.123/2016 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi (for short, ‘ the Sessions Court’ ). The Sessions Court by its impugned order dated 28.12.2018 has rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) for discharge.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner takes

¶19

this Court through charge sheet, more specifically the statements of Sri. Naveen Pujari, one of the sons of the deceased Smt.Seema Balachandra Pujari. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution’s case against the petitioner is that she runs a chit and the deceased Smt.Seema had invested a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with the petitioner on the assurance that the petitioner would give her assured returns. The

¶20

¶21

deceased Smt.Seema invested this amount of

¶22

Rs.4,00,000/- from her own savings and the amounts received on the death of her husband. The petitioner did not repay the amount despite repeated requests; the petitioner told the deceased that she would return the money once her husband returns from Dubai; but later, the petitioner told the deceased Smt.Seema that she would not pay back the amount and she could do anything. The deceased Smt.Seema at the instance of the petitioner, tried to call on the petitioner at her residence in the morning on 15.07.2013 with the hope that the money would be paid. But, the deceased Smt.Seema on finding the petitioner’s residence locked, walked across the house in the front, climbed the stairs, doused herself with kerosene and burnt herself to death. The petitioner instigated the deceased Smt.Seema to commit suicide.

¶23

¶24

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues

¶25

that though the initial statement by Sri.Naveen Pujari was in these lines, he later filed another statement with the police stating that the petitioner murdered the deceased Smt.Seema by her dousing with kerosene and lighting her on fire. This statement was again changed by Sri. Naveen Pujari with the subsequent statement on 01.12.2013 wherein, he has stated that his mother committed suicide because she was shocked when she did not find the petitioner in the residence on 15.07.2013.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision in Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh

¶27

Sengar Vs. State of M.P.¹ , canvasses that the prosecution to succeed in its case against the petitioner must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was instigated by the petitioner to immolate herself. The settled law is that an accused to be

¶28

1 (2002) 5 SCC 371

¶29

¶30

convicted for an offence under Section 306 of IPC, it must be established that the accused by some act must have goaded the deceased to commit suicide with the intention of brining out such result. The conflicting statements made by Sri.Naveen Pujari does not demonstrate instigation as required under Section 107 of IPC, a necessary ingredient for convicting the petitioner under Section 306 of IPC. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be discharged.

¶31

The learned Additional State Public

¶32

Prosecutor refuting these submissions submits that at the stage of discharge, the Courts should consider the prosecutions’ material believing it to be entirely true to ascertain whether there is grave suspicion of the accused being guilty and if the Court on such consideration i.e., without sieving the evidence as is done after the trial, is of the opinion that there exists grave suspicion, the accused cannot be discharged. The

¶33

¶34

learned Additional State Public Prosecutor relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sajjan

¶35

Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation² .

¶36

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar’s (supra) case, has detailed the principles that would govern exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. and the relevant paragraph reads as follows:

¶37

“21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:-

¶38

(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.

¶39

ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

¶40

2 (2010) 9 SCC 368

¶41

¶42

iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

¶43

iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.

¶44

v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.

¶45

vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.

¶46

vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be

¶47

¶48

empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.”

¶49

In the present case, the accusation against the petitioner is that there was a financial transaction between the petitioner and the deceased and the deceased was deeply disturbed because the petitioner was not returning the money due to her. The petitioner called the deceased to her house on 15.07.2013 and in the afternoon of the same day only the charred remains of the deceased was found in the house in front of the petitioner. The accusation against the petitioner is not only of instigating the deceased to commit suicide but also having caused the murder of the deceased, which of-course appears to have been retracted.

¶50

This Court’s jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is confined to cases where a Trial Court’s order suffers from a patent error or an error of

¶51

¶52

jurisdiction or to correct a perversity that has crept in to proceedings, and it is oft reiterated that High Courts should not unduly interfere or undertake a meticulous examination of the prosecution material. Sri. Naveen Pujari’s statements recorded under Section 162 of Cr.P.C, and relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, will have to be considered in the light of the statements of the other witnesses similarly recorded. The Sessions Court has considered Sri.Naveen Pujari’ s statements and also the statement of other witnesses residing in the vicinity of the place of occurrence viz ., P.Ws.15, 16 and 17 in opining that there is prima facie material to frame charge against the accused.

¶53

In the light of the material placed on record by the prosecution and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as regards the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no patent error or perversity in the impugned

¶54

¶55

order only because of Sri. Navaeen Pujari’s statements.

¶56

As such, the petition is dismissed.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Sh/rsh

Sujata W/O Joseph v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujata W/O Joseph v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Chandrawwa W/O Siddappa Shiragur Vs Shri.Tippanna S/O. Govindappa Budni

Sri. Abhijeet S./O. Somanath Bhatkande Vs Sri. Ramachandra S/O. Rama Gurav

Ballari Agro Gold Projects (Pvt) Ltd. Vs S. Jambunath S/O Veeranna Sonnad

Sri.Kashimsab S/O Hussainsab Mullannavar Vs Smt.Khairunnisa W/O Kashimsab Mullannavar

Shivaji S/O Bharma Govekar Vs the Belagavi District Wholesale

Sri. Gopal S/O. Hanamantappa Karigar Vs Sri. Ningappa S/O. Muttappa Naikar