Petitioners dropped from a dowry-death charge sheet challenged their addition as accused under Section 319 CrPC based on trial evidence. The High Court found PW1 to PW4 gave material implicating them and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:1579 CRL.P No. 13704 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13704 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VENKATRAMAN NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHIKKABALLAPURA IN S.C.NO.23/2022 IN ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PROSECUTION UNDER SEC.319 OF CRPC AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT U/S.319 OF CPRC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and
5 under section 482 of Cr.P.C., for setting aside the order passed by the trial court in S.C.No.23/2022, pending before III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, by adding these petitioners as additional accused persons by allowing the application under section 319 of Cr.P.C., filed by the Public Prosecutor.
NC: 2024:KHC:1579 CRL.P No. 13704 of 2023
Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor moved an application under section 319 of Cr.P.C., for summoning these accused persons as additional accused to try along with the other accused. A notice was issued to these petitioners. They have filed objection before the Sessions judge. Subsequently, the impugned order came to be allowed, which is under challenge.
no sufficient material or evidence against them. Subsequent to the trial, when P.W.1 was examined, though he has not stated in the first instance in the examination chief, however, he has stated at para No.4, that these two petitioners were residing in the house of accused Nos.1 to 3. The public prosecutor treated these witnesses as hostile and in the cross examination, he has admitted that these accused Nos.4 and 5 also harassed the deceased, due to which she has committed suicide. Apart from that P.W.2/Manjulamma mother of deceased, she also stated that this accused No.4 also used to insult and abuse her, as she was not interested in marrying the deceased for her brother, inspite of that they were married, due to which there were lot of problems, which they were facing. Para 6 of the evidence of P.W.2, where there is allegation made against these two petitioners. Likewise, P.W.3 and P.W.4 also stated in their evidence about these petitioners. Their evidence was not cross examined by counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3. It is well settled by Hon'ble' Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 , when the material is placed on record, it is more than the framing of charge and less than the conviction. If strong evidence is made, the accused can be
NC: 2024:KHC:1579 CRL.P No. 13704 of 2023
summoned as co-accused for trying together with the main accused. It is well settled by Hon'ble' Supreme Court in Catena of decisions and also the judgment relied by the trial court in
Crl.A.No.396/2019, Khusbu Gupta VS State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, where the evidence of prosecution witnesses were shown or the allegation made against the petitioner in the complaint has been adduced before the court. There is no other option for the public prosecutor or even the complainant who can file the application for summoning the accused who are left out from the charge sheet, even though they are arraigned as accused in the FIR. Such being the case, when the presumption under Section 113 (B) of Evidence Act is available to the prosecution, the accused is required to rebut the same after leading the evidence by the prosecution. The evidence of PW1 to PW4 is not impeached by the accused counsel and deferred for cross examination. Therefore, I am of the view, when the material placed on record for having involvement of the commission of offence for abusing and harassing the deceased by the accused persons and in-laws which attracts 498A of IPC. Though, section 302 of IPC was also included in FIR, but it was dropped from the charge sheet.
The offence also attracts sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. Such being the case, I am of the view, it is not a fit case for interfering with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
AKV List No.: 1 Sl.No.: 46 CT:SK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether prosecution witnesses' evidence against persons dropped from the charge sheet justified their summoning as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶7
(2014) 3 SCC 92 · Who else cites this
Khusbu Gupta VS State of Uttar Pradesh and OrsRelied on¶7
Crl.A.No.396/2019
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Lakshmi A G
Jayashankar K N
State of Karnataka by Chikkaballapura Town Police
Ramachandrappa M
K. Natarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
