Dismissed
The State of Karnataka v. Rukminibai
Karnataka HCCRL.RP/696/2017
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
2024:KHC:1287 CRL.RP No. 696 of 2017 IN THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
2024:KHC:1287 CRL.RP No. 696 of 2017 IN THE…
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 696 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HOLALKERE POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP)
AND:
W/O. THIMMANAIK, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD WORK.
Digitally signed by SANDHYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
A1 TO A5 ARE R/O. KUDINEERKATTE, LAMBANIHATTY VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. HANUMANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN S.C.NO.63/2016 DATED 14.02.2017 OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A) AND 304(B) R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ACCUSED NO.2 TO 7 U/S 227 OF CR.P.C AND ALLOW THIS CRL.RP.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The State has preferred this revision petition against
the Order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the I Addl. District
and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in S.C.No.63/2011 on application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
against Respondents 1 to 6 who are Accused Nos.2 to 7 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 143, 498(A), 304(B) read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The application was filed by the respondents who are Accused Nos.2 to 7 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., for discharge of accused for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 143, 498(A), 304(B) read with Section 149 of IPC. The State filed objection. On hearing the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has allowed the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., on behalf of Accused Nos.2 to 7 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 498(A), 304(B) read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Being
NC: 2024:KHC:1287 CRL.RP No. 696 of 2017
aggrieved by this order passed by the Trial Court, the State has preferred this revision petition.
perusal of impugned order, the following points would arise for consideration:
ii) What Order?
Point No.(ii): As per final order
Regarding Point No.(i):
NC: 2024:KHC:1287 CRL.RP No. 696 of 2017
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned High Court Government Pleader has submitted that State has not preferred appeal against the Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
14) POINT No.1:- In the lengthy argument learned advocate appearing for the accused No.2 to 7 by analyzing statement of the witnesses, contents of the complaint submitted that material placed by the Investigation officer confirms that since last 5-6 months as on the date of the incident accused No.1 and his wife Nirmala, a Lecturer Government Decree College Holalkere resided in a rented house owned by C.W.15 at Holalkere town separately from accused No.2 to 7 and there are no materials to show that accused No.2 to 7 are the reason for the suicide of wife of the accused No.1, therefore requested to allow the application by relying on the following precedents:-
15) In the argument learned public prosecutor submitted that material placed by Investigation officer along with charge sheet confirms that accused No.2 to 7 being in-laws are also reason for unnatural death of wife of the accused No.1 within 7 years from the date of the marriage, therefore requested to reject application by relying on the following judgments:-
Criminal Appeal No.630 of 1989 (Arising our of SLP (Cri.) No.325 of 1989) Criminal Appeal No.631 of 1989 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.502 of 1989)
–
DD-.17.10.1989.
16) In the light of the submission made on behalf of both the parties and judgments cited on behalf of both the parties, I have appreciated the materials available on record.
17) FIR shows that on 6.2.2016 at 13.30 hours on the basis of a complaint presented by Puspha.D w/o Devendranaik, police have registered a case agaisnt against accused No.1 to 7 for having committed the offence punishable U/Section.143, 498A, 302, 304B r/w. section.149 of IPC, section.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
18) In the lengthy complaint it is alleged that on 12.12.2012 at Taralabalu choultry, Davanagere marriage of Nirmala was solmenized with the accused No.1. Nirmala working as guest lecturer at Government College Holalkere, during marriage dowry was not given, in the wedlock of Nirmala and accused No.1, two children were born, when first child of Nirmala was aged about 1½
months, forcibly accused No.1 took his wife and child to his house, in the matrimonial home accusedNo.1 to 7 together made assault on Nirmala, then Nirmala came to her parents house, then accused No.1 came to the house of in-laws compromised with Nirmala took his wife to his house, then accused No.1 to 7 continued to torture Nirmala, during August 2014 accused No.1 to 7 made assault and drew Nirmala from the house, therefore Nirmala came to her parents house, for a period of 3 months accused No.1 did not visit the house of in-laws, when second child was aged about 10 days accused No.1 took Nirmala and her child to a rented house situated at Holalkere, on 2.2.2016 at 10 p.m., Nirmala returned to the house from Mayakonda village, Davangere District, on 5.2.2016 at 6 p.m., through telephone invited Nirmala and her husband to Echagatta village for Mari festival at 8.30 p.m., accused No.1 refused to attend mari festival, next day at 8.30 a.m., accused No.1 informed about the suicide committed by Nirmala. Petitioners and accused No.1 together killed Nirmala and then hanged her body.
19) In the further statement of complainant dated 6.2.2016, it is noted that before investigating officer complainant stated that due to the torture caused by the accused No.1 between 11 p.m., of 5.2.2016 and 5 a.m., of 6.2.2016 Nirmala committed suicide by selfhanging.
20) In the statement of C.W.5-Devendranaik, C.W.6- Laxmibai w/o Devendranaik, C.W.12Manjula, C.W.13Sakamma, C.W.14Hanumanthanaik, parents, sisters, younger brother of the deceased, it is noted that since last 5 months as on the date of incident deceased and accused No.1 resided in a rented house at Holalkere on 5.2.2016 parents,
sisters, brother of deceased went to Ichaghatta maari festival.
21) In the statement of Rameshnaik s/o Shankarnaik advocate Tholahunase village, Punith s/o Kumarnaik, Sathishkumar s/o Maheshwaranaik, Rathnabai w/o Shekharnaik it is noted that since last 5 months as on the date of incident deceased and accused No.1 resided in a rented house at Holalkere.
22) The material on records shows that as on 5.2.2016 accused No.1 is working as an advocate at Holalkere, deceased is working as guest lecturer at Government Degree College Holalkere.
23) The statement of C.W.15 owner of the house where deceased and accused No.1 resided together it is noted that accused No.1, his wife and children are resided cordially on 6.2.2016 morning accused No.1 informed suicide of his wife to the C.W.15.
24) In the charge sheet residential address of the accused No.2 to 6 are noted as residents of Kudineerukatte Lambinahatti, residential address of accused No.7 is noted as Sunnadakoppa village, Shikaripura Taluk, Shivamoga District, residential address of accused No.1 and place of incident are noted as Murugendraiah Badavane Holalkere town.
25) In this case in either charge sheet or statements of the parents, sisters, brother, mother and other witnesses, there are no explanation the method how accused No.2 to 7 who are not resided with accused No.1 and deceased have caused torture, thereby became the reason for the suicide of deceased i.e., wife of accused No.1. Hence it is clear that only on the basis of the relationship of accused No.2 to 7 with accused No.1 and the deceased
NC: 2024:KHC:1287 CRL.RP No. 696 of 2017
mechanically the Investigation officer inserted names of the accused No.2 to 7 as accused in the charge sheet.
materials placed before this Court and also keeping in mind the acquittal of Respondent No.1 in S.C.No.63/2016 on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, C..dated 04.09.2017, I do not find any illegality/legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, I answer Point No.(i) in the negative.
Regarding Point No.(ii):
the following:
ORDER
Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
BNV
CT:SNN
Sd/JUDGE
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
RUKMINIBAI
THIMMANAIK
GIRISHNAIK
SUMA @ SUNITHA @ SUMITHRABAI
MOHAN NAIK @ KALA
G BASAVARAJA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court