Criminal Petition No. 14437 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6650 CRL.P No. 14437 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14437 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT. SUMITRA, WIFE OF LATE SIDDABEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT DUNTHURU VILLAGE, SATHNUR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562 126. (BY SRI. ABHINAY YT.,ADVOCATE) AND: PETITIONER Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SATHNUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. RAVI KUMAR. C, POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, SATHNUR POLICE STATION, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANGARA DISTRICT 562 126. RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. ANITHA GRISH., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED QUASH THE - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6650 CRL.P No. 14437 of 2024 PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.5028 OF 2022 (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.153 OF 2021) PENDING BEFORE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KANAKAPURA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 AND 201 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC REGISTERED BY SATHNURU POLICE STATION, KANAKAPURA TALUK AND ETC,. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner / accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the criminal proceeding in SC.No.5028/2022 pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanakapura, arising out of Crime No.153/2021 registered by Santhnooru Police Station, Kanakapura taluk, Ramanagara District for having charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner / accused No.1 and learned HCGP for the respondents. 3. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2 –PSI of Sathnoor Police Station had submitted a report that on 30.08.2018 around 2:30 pm one Mahesh who is the resident of Dunthuru village of Sathnooru Hobli, Kanakapura taluk lodged a - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6650 CRL.P No. 14437 of 2024 complaint stating that on 29.08.2018, when he was in Banglore at 1:30 pm he received a call from villagers that his elder brother was succumbed to dead by committing suicide. While burying the dead body, he found some injuries on the body. Therefore, he suspected the death of his brother is murder. Hence, he gave a complaint to the police. Based upon the report, the police registered the UDR No.17/2018 under Section 174(c) of Cr.P.C and enquiry was conducted. Subsequently, the dead body was subjected to the postmortem examination and the doctor has collected viscera of the deceased and sent the same to the FSL and after receiving the report, the opinion was obtained from the doctor stating that death was due to strangulation. After the enquiry, he registered the FIR against the wife of the deceased showing the name of this petitioner as accused No.1 contending that there was intimacy between accused Nos.1 and 2 and they have committed the murder of the deceased by strangulation. Hence, he registered the FIR in Crime No.153/2021 on 04.09.2021 and also filed the charge sheet which is under challenge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously contended that the police registered the FIR based upon the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6650 CRL.P No. 14437 of 2024 enquiry on the UDR. There is no injury in the postmortem examination or any other volatile poisons, pesticides, barbiturates, benzodiazepine group of drugs and toxic metal ions were not detected in the FSL report. The death was due to committing suicide, but the police have filed FIR and charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Absolutely, there is no material to show that this petitioner committed murder of her own husband. The statements recorded from the villagers is not a offence under Section 302 of IPC. It is clear shows that the suicide committed by himself i.e., husband of the petitioner himself. Therefore, conducting the proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of procedure, hence, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel also contended that accused No.2 also approached this Court and quashed the criminal proceedings in Criminal Petition No.1144/2024 on 20.03.2024 on similar grounds. As there is no evidence, this petition is not sustainable and there is no material on record to frame the charges for the offences. Hence, prayed for quashing the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that as per the statement of witness and the complainant the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6650 CRL.P No. 14437 of 2024 accused made force to drink alcohol for the deceased, but there is no alcohol content in the FSL report. Most of the witness are stated that both accused Nos.1 and 2 together have committed the murder. But there is no material placed on record to show that the death of the deceased is by homicide. Absolutely, there is no evidence to prove the case of the prosecution. Hence prayed for quashing the same. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondents has objected the petition contending that the petitioner / accused No.1 is the wife of the deceased both are stayed together in the same house and the husband has committed suicide, it is the responsibility of wife to explain why her husband has committed suicide. Alternatively, it has argued that if at all Section 302 of I.P.C in not applicable the abetment of suicide may be attracted. Therefore, the petitioner is required to approach the Trial Court for discharge of the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. Therefore, it is not a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6650 CRL.P No. 14437 of 2024 7. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the records. The records reveal that the death of the deceased is not in dispute, the commission of suicide in the house of the petitioner where the petitioner and the deceased were resided together. Before intimation of the incident the complainant was in Banglore, he visited the spot, at the time of cremation in the graveyard, he found some injuries on the body of the deceased i.e., his elder brother so, he has suspected the death of his brother is due to murder. Hence, he has filed a complaint in the Sthanooru police station, the police have registered UDR under Section 174(c) of Cr.P.C. The police officer have investigated the matter by referring the body to the postmortem and colleting the viscera of the deceased for FSL chemical analysis. Later he came to conclusion and recorded statement of witnesses of the villagers and came to the conclusion that the murder was committed by accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, FIR was registered and charge sheet came to be filed. 8. Admittedly, accused No.2 who said to be the paramour of this petitioner where they said to be illegal connection and the same came to the knowledge of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6650 CRL.P No. 14437 of 2024 deceased he has objected, accused Nos.1 and 2 said to be committed murder of deceased. But on perusal of the postmortem report, absolutely there is no any physical injuries except some abrasions found on the body of the deceased. The doctor is unable to give opinion about the cause of death. The viscera of the deceased i.e., liver, kidney, stomach and small intestine were collected and sent for FSL chemical analysis. The FSL report also reveals that there is no residues of volatile poisons, pesticides, barbiturates, benzodiazepine group of drugs and toxic metal ions were not detected in all the above stated viscera. Hence, homicidal death is ruled out. 9. Based upon the said contention this Court quashes criminal proceedings against accused No.2 mainly on the ground there is no conversation between accused Nos.1 and 2 either on the date of the incident or prior to the date of the incident or subsequent to the date of the incident and mainly on the ground that the presence of accused No.2 was not spoken of by any of the witnesses around the place of incident either prior to the incident or at the time of the incident or after the incident. There is no material to connect accused No.2 in this crime, therefore, this Court quashed the criminal - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6650 CRL.P No. 14437 of 2024 proceedings against accused No.2, the same has attained finality. 10. Coming to the case of petitioner / accused No.1 who is the wife of the deceased, admittedly, her and her husband were in the house. There is allegation made by the statement of witnesses in their statement witnesses that some intimation between accused Nos.1 and 2 which was objected by the deceased. Prior to the incident when deceased and accused No.1 residing in the same house, the husband was found death by committing suicide. Accused No.1 – wife who is inmate of the house required to explain what happened to her husband and what made him to commit suicide. She alone is having personal knowledge and required to explain before or in the Court of law as required under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. Of course there is no material for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C as it is ruled out regarding the homicidal death. The fact remains death of deceased by suicide and petitioner accused No.1 is along with him, the police filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C, the Court cannot accept as it is the offence of Section 302 of I.P.C attracts. Where the Court require to consider for - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6650 CRL.P No. 14437 of 2024 the offence of Section 302 of I.P.C there must be the homicidal death, then only the offence committed by the accused or not. The preliminary requirement for cause of homicidal death is absent. Therefore, it is a admitted fact that deceased has committed suicide by himself. But the wife is in the house and there are other witnesses including the complainant who have stated that the alleged incident between accused Nos.1 and 2 is known to the deceased. There must be some conversation or quarrel between husband and wife prior to the incident it may leads to cause of death by committing suicide by himself which is not ruled out. The police have filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C, the Trial Court cannot frame charge for the offences under Section 302 of I.P.C without verifying the material on record. Here becomes chance of altering the charges for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C into Section 306 of I.P.C where the presumption available in the prosecution for having death of the deceased is suicide. Therefore, the petitioner is required to approach the Trial Court for seeking discharge of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. If any material is found by the Trial Court even the Trial Court has a - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6650 CRL.P No. 14437 of 2024 power to alter the charges or frame the alternative charge to the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C, when the offence is doubtful charge as per Section 221 of Cr.P.C, even the Court has power to alter the charges at any stage as per Section 216 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court cannot verify the offence is committed under Section 306 or 302 of I.P.C which is a matter of record to be considered by the Trial Court. Therefore, it is not a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings at this stage. 11. Accordingly, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The criminal petition is dismissed. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE PNV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3