Dinesh v. The State of Karnataka

ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: One Mangalaram, son of Guddurarn of Bangalore, who is the brother of one Pappudi, who was the wife of the present petitioner, had filed a complaint before the Shiraguppa Police, alleging that his sister was given marriage to the petitioner, when they were young children and that it was a child marriage. However, Pappudi had jointed the petitioner in May 2009 in his matrimonial home and at that time, the petitioner’s family was provided with 40 grams of gold, 80 grams of tikka, 750 grams of silver and other small gold and silver ornaments and cash of Rs.80,000/- as dowry. The couple lived together cordially for a year. Thereafter, it is alleged that in the month of May. Pappudi was brought from Rajasthan to Shiraguppa and the petitioner’s family commenced demands for cash as additional dowry. that was informed by the deceased to the complainant, but however she was asked to bear the petitioner and his family. It was further alleged that, during the month of June and July 2009, the petitioner along with his family members had attacked Pappudi and had injured her. The brother-in-law of the complainant had made enquiries, whereby the petitioner admitted that they were in the wrong and on the further request of the petitioner, that he would treat her properly, she was again to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, is alleged that Pappudi called the complainant and requested him to take her away immediately from her marital house, that she was very afraid of the petitioner and his family members, that they may harm her and the complainant on advice of his parents, decided to visit the petitioner and his family. However, he was informed that Pappudi has already committed suicide by hanging. According to the complainant, the above circumstance would indicate that Pappudi was actually done to death by the petitioner and family and that she did not commit suicide, according to her phone call which he had received and therefore, the complainant registered a against petitioner and his brother, as well as the sister-in-law and also 4 one other brother of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently on an application before the Magistrate Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibiton Act were included as well, the same was registered in Crime No.176/2010. The petitioner and his other family members were in judicial custody. An application for Bail having been moved on their behalf the Court has granted the bail application, insofar as the members of the family are concerned, while rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, it is in this background, that the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel the petitioner would contend that the investigation is completed in all respects. The Police have not unearthed any evidence to incriminate the present petitioner of having committed murder. The medical report would indicate that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. There are no signs of injuries on the body. This would indicate that there were no external injuries, whereby it could be expected that Pappudi was murdered by the petitioner and his family members. The further circumstance that the deceased was suffering from a condition termed as dis-functional uterus bleeding and she had undergone sustained treatment and in spite of such treatment, she continued to suffer from acute pain. Therefore, she was suffering from unbearable and excruciating pain almost all the time. Tt is claimed by the petitioner that out of sheer desperation she had committed suicide on account of physical and mental discomfort. There is no material provided to demonstrate that there was actual treatment of the deceased. The family of the deceased and the petitioner’s family are closely related and the marriage of the petitioner and his wife having taken place at a very young age chances of demand for dowry, several decades after the marriage is not readily acceptable. The petitioner has sought to be produce records to demonstrate that, as the deceased was suffering from illness, is possible reason to commit suicide. In the above circumstances in the absence of any such ill treatment and in the absence of medical report, of any foul play. The mere fact that Pappudi had died could not be characterised as murder. The 6 trail Court had rejected the bail application of the petitioner for one reason namely, that the Forensic Science Laboratory report was awaited and till date the report has not been furnished. In the face of a medical report which on the face of it did not indicate any foul play, apart from unnatural death of hanging, it is doubtful whether the Forensic Science Laboratory report would show any material to incriminate, the accused and therefore, seeks enlargement on bail by imposing such terms and conditions.

4. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would seriously oppose the bail application and while re counting the sequence of events. The learned Government Pleader draws attention to the following incriminating material, namely, the statement of Gopal, who has spoken about marriage and about the dowry given at the time of marriage and is the statement that whenever he had visited Pappudi she would confide that there was a constant demand of dowry and ill treatment to her by the petitioner and his family. And the further circumstance that the death had occurred within seven 7 years from marriage would attract the rigour of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and hence, would submit that there is no case made out for enlargement on bail, as it is possible that the petitioner may jump bail and could influence the prosecution witnesses.

5. These objections are sought to be met by the learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply. He would point out that the marriage had not taken place on 22.05.2009, but had taken place several decades earlier as it was a child marriage. Pappudi was only brought to her matrimonial home in the year 2009. The further claim that the death has taken place within two years of her coming to the matrimonial home by itself would not a ground to deny bail, as there are no other circumstance indicate play. The circumstance of the petitioner threatening or influencing the prosecution witnesses is also not contemplated. Since the prosecution witnesses is Gopal, the brother of the deceased and it is highly unlikely that he would be influenced or threatened 8 by the petitioner and the question of the petitioner jumping bail would not arise, as this Court can place him on appropriate terms. Accordingly. in the above circumstance, there is no foul play and since the only other ground on which the lower Court has rejected the bail is that Forensic Science Laboratory report was awaited. Having regard to the prima facie medical report indicating that there is no foul play. Awaiting the report may not serve much purpose priority to the trial to establish the case against the accused. Even if it did establish any additional evidence, the petitioner has certainly made out a case for grant of bail. The petition is allowed, the petitioner be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: 1) He shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of 3Q.OOO/- with a solvent surety for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 2) He shall make himself available to the Investigation Officer as and when required for the purposes of investigation. 3) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without seeking leave of that Court. ‘7 9 4) He shall not seek to induce or threaten the prosecution witnesses. 5) He shall attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail subject to the Court granting exemption for good and valid reason. Rsh Sc?