Abdul Rehman vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Justice A.S. Pachhapure

The petitioner has challenged the order of rejection of his application filed u/s 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge.

The facts reveal that the petitioner is the second accused In S.C.No.437/2011 and was chargesheeted for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B readwith 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused No. 1 is the husband of Salma Kousar whose marriage took place on 16-07-2007. She committed suicide by hanging on 31-07-2010. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused demanded dowry and subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment and in such circumstances, she is said to have committed suicide. After the investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed for the aforesaid offences and on appearance of the accused, the petitioner herein who is Accused No.2 i.e., the father-in-law of deceased Salma Kousar moved an application seeking discharge u/s 227 Cr.P.C. The said application was heard and ejected by the Trial Court and aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the High Court Government Pleader.

As could be seen from the statements and the material placed on record in the chargesheet submitted by the prosecution, the complaint of this incident was filed by the father of deceased Salma. In the complaint, there were only allegations against Accused No. 1 subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment. During the inquest proceedings which were held on 31-07-2010 the statements of the mother of the deceased, two brothers, sister and a neighbour were recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate. Even in the said statements as well, the name of the petitioner does not find any place and nothing is attributed against him for subjecting the deceased to cruelty, harassment or demand for dowry. It is thereafter that the investigation was entrusted to ACP and on 20-08-2010 and 21-08-2010 he is said to have recorded the additional statements of the witnesses aforesaid, wherein the petitioner was implicated alongwith the other accused. Even the perusal of the said statements reveal a general allegation against the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2005 SCC (Cri.) 415 (State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi) wherein it is held as under:

In the old Code of 1898 there was no provision similar to Section 227 of the new Code of 1973. Section 227 was incorporated in the 1973 Code with a view to save the accused from prolonged harassment which is a necessary concomitant of a protracted criminal trial. It is calculated to eliminate harassment to accused persons when the evidential materials gathered after investigation fall short of minimum legal requirements. If tile evidence even if fully accepted cannot show that the accused committed the offence, the accused deserves to be discharged. In the old Code, the procedure as contained in Sections 207 and 207-A was fairly lengthy.

So, as could be seen from the principles laid down in the decision referred to supra, it cannot be forgotten that the father of the deceased did not implicate the petitioner as the accused and did not make any allegations of cruelty, harassment or for demand for dowry. Even at the time when the statements were recorded during the inquest, no such allegations were made against the petitioner. There is inordinate delay in recording the additional statements in addition to the grounds stated above. In such a case, rather it is difficult to find out any prospects of the case ending in conviction and this aspect was not taken into consideration by the Trial Court. So, scanning the entire chargesheet, except showing the name of the petitioner for the first time on 20-08-2010 and 21-08-2010 in the additional statements of the aforesaid witnesses, his name never appeared either in the FIR or the statements recorded at the earliest point of time. The possibility of false implications are usual in the present days, so as to cause harassment and to rope all the members of the family. In such circumstances, the scrutiny has to be strict, so as to eliminate such persons who have been falsely implicated and wherever there is no material against such accused and the prospects of conviction are not there. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the application of the petitioner is both erroneous and illegal and requires to be quashed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The revision petition is allowed. The order dated 18.10.2011 passed in S.C.No.437/11 on the file of the Presiding Officer, FTC-XVII, Bangalore City is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is granted and he is discharged of the offences alleged.