1 Crl. RP 2434/06
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE A.s.PAcHHA;5UR1§j'* E-
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NQ.243'4'/':ir)aۤ"'
BETWEEN A " v
1. Smt. Gowramma,
Aged about 5} years,
W/0. K.H. Javara Setty.
2. K.H. Javara Setty. V _
Aged about 57 years," * 1_ }
S/0. Late Honna Setty, '~ _ '
S/0, K..H. Ja'§Iara'S¢tty_§'vv----__ ~ I
All the'=petiti01"1--er's are fesiding at
No.465, "Lakshminarasimha Nilaya".
Rgarrna. Mancii.r_a 'Road, Kodigehalli,
._'Banga1o;-e--56O ~e9--2; ... PETITIONER/S
' " {_ry;'Nagesh 8: KR. Lankesh, Advs.]
A A _ The EStatc:"dI"R'E1maiaka
'By the Station House Officer,
_ "ebbal Police Station,
A v~._Bgng"a1ore City. RESPONDENT/S
E” (éigriflajgsubramanya Bhata 35393
3i€=F=i=**
2 Crl. RP 2434/06
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397
r/W 401 Cr.P.C. praying to reverse and set aside the order–.dt.
11.10.06 passed in s.c.Ne.285/06 on the file of the pa},-V
IX, Bangalore, directing framing of charges .
petitioners for offences p/u/S.498–A and 304-13. of” 1
IPC and u/Ss.3 and 4 of 13.13. Act.
This Criminal Revision Pe’t_ition having _been’ .heard
reserved, coming on for pronounceinent of Orders; thiséday, the
Court delivered the followii=ig3
The petitioneifno. 1 the–:ri1othelr._’whe;reas petitioner No.2
is the father Me respectively accused 1
to 3 before’ ‘S.(é2JNo§085/2006. Accused No.3
married oiirel of Sint. Susheelarnina the
complainant and”the._ took place on 17.11.2005 at
Aftervthernarriage, S1nt.Latha did not join the
.l’petit.ioner”t–i.ll she breathed her last i.e., on 04.01.2006.
She stayed’ ‘j_t.h’e’marital home between the date of marriage
and the ,date.of her death hardly for about a week or so. It is
the prosecution that the deceased Latha during her
the house of the accused was subjected to cruelty and
1’ ‘glhalrassment and even at the time of the marriage, the family
2: f —
3 Cr}. RP 2434-/O6
members of the deceased had given Rs.30.000/- dowry, golden
chain, rings and golden ornaments to the deceased. After the
marriage, it is alleged that the spouses were cordial for about
20 days and thereafter, the 3″‘ petitioner went to
Vishakapatnam.
2. During the stay of the deceased”‘i11«her’l,yin¢3,aixi:sy_ hotiseih;
after her husband Went to the job, itbais
small mistakes of the deceased.–.Aooused Nos.._1l virere l’
abusing her stating that she doesi—no:t’–know cookin,g..and were
not allowing her to call her and they also
threatened to kick h’erV_and;tol’oust frorn house.
3. it is the husband of the deceased
returned to his_h01.1se “h:e:ja1so abused the deceased stating
that his getting-Hthe house hold work done through his
A’pa._rerits His parents told him that if he had
mairieldgy«somVev_v.oth:er” girl, he could have got more dowry and in
V these eircurnstances, the deceased had told her mother and
thatsshe is scared as to what would happen. It is
4l_l_ultiv_nately on 4.1.2006 at about 11.00 a.m., the deceased
committed suicide by hanging herself which Was seen by the
4 Cri. RP 2434/06
parents and she was lifted to the hospital and the doctors
declared her dead. On the complaint of her mother Smt.
Susheelarnma, a crime was registered and the statements of
the witnesses were recorded during the investigation
completion of the investigation, the charge sheet .
the case was committed to the
S.C.No.285/2006. When the matter iwas,’_’°p~dstéd
before the charge, the petitionerseontended thatttfthfleregwisi no
sufficient material on record for tiffellge underfiection 304-
B IPC and therefore, theyvcontepndedthattpiacharge for the said
offence cannot be.v_framed–.t–»..7ifiheV*- passed the
impugned”order.,t1i_rectingTttogfranietvtthe charge for the offence
under Section.498–;2X,.’f’:3f)i1vEI3i’*-regldurith Section 34 of IPC and
Sections_3 andwlt “of Prohibition Act as against the
‘petitic{rrersnflggrieved~hy*this order, the present petition has
” , .44’ IVhaveVA’E=ieard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and aiso the learned Government Pleader.
” _ V The whole case is dependent on the statements of the
V””t.___fc’omp1ainant » mother of the deceased, CWs.3 and 4: — the
5 Crl. RP 2434/06
sisters of the deceased and CW5 the grand father of the
deceased.
6. Now, as could be seen from their statements what
they have stated with regard to the offence under Sect3’co’r1–iA’
B IPC is that the parents–in–1aw of the deceased.-Ajcomnlailned'”:d ‘
her husband stating that if he had married uh’
could have had more dowry and this
deceased and therefore, she scared.._ this
in the investigation, no__othei=_r_vnateri’alVis placed on
record to show that there was7any’_ de{_man-dfori dowry.
7. :AsmcoU.1.:’d be thlelllprovisions of Section 304-
B IPC, it is’.necessary«’.’fortttvheiprcsecution to establish that the
deceased was'”subjectedKto’~~–cruelty and harassment by her
“l1usba.nd. oriany relaiiv.e…of her husband for or in connection
Vwitli.V.any dowry, such death shall be called as dowry
‘ ” V death. So as cotlld be seen from this provision, if there is some
‘ material tdprove cruelty or harassment for any demand for
only the provisions of Section 304~B are attracted.
Now, as could be seen from the statements recorded
Vandllreferred to supra, it is only to the effect that the parents-
.-“-,
7 Cr]. RP 2434/O8
directing to frame the charge for the offence under Section 304w
B IPC is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Triai
Court to consider the charge for the offence under Seetion~’–306
IPC, if there is any material in this regard.
JL
to 3 t to