Amjad Khan vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B, J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No. 1 u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304(B) read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 14/2014.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that with regard to ill-treatment and harassment meted out to the deceased by the petitioner in connection with dowry amount, in the complaint, it is not mentioned as to the kind of dowry demanded by the petitioner, whether it is in terms of money or gold or other kind. It is simply mentioned as dowry. This itself goes to show that there is no prima facie material placed by the prosecution about allegation of the dowry harassment. The learned Counsel submitted that even looking to the statement of witnesses, the witnesses have not stated with regard to the alleged ill treatment and harassment to the deceased by the petitioner. The other accused persons have been already granted bail by the order of the Sessions Judge. The materials go to show that it is the present petitioner who took the deceased to hospital and admitted therein. The learned Counsel further made the submission that looking to the document issued by the hospital authorities, it goes to show that at the first instance, the statement of the deceased has been recorded wherein it is stated that there was quarrel between herself and her husband, the petitioner herein, on 19.2.2014 morning and disturbed with the same, she went to house and set ablaze herself. She was brought to the hospital accompanied by her husband and there were 80% to 90% superficial deep present. This material also goes to show that the petitioner has not at all the committed the alleged offence of pouring kerosene and setting fire to the deceased. The learned Counsel further made the submission that the petitioner is having two small children and there is nobody to take care of the said children. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that looking to the allegations made in the complaint by the father of the deceased and also the statement of the other witnesses, it prima facie goes to show involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence. The learned HCGP submitted that C.Ws. 2 and 3, who are independent witnesses and also the eye witnesses to the incident, in their statement, have clearly stated that they have seen the petitioner committing the alleged offence. He has also submitted that even looking to the statement of the other witnesses, it goes to show that the present petitioner was giving ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased in connection with the additional dowry amount. Their statement also goes to show that at the time of incident, when the deceased came out of the house having burn on her body, the petitioner also followed her. He submitted that there is material to show that it is the petitioner who committed the alleged offence which is taken place within seven years from the date of his marriage with the deceased and that too in the house of the petitioner when the deceased was leading her marital life. He submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition and the other materials on record.

With regard to the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the form of dowry is not clearly mentioned in the complaint and it is only mentioned as dowry, FIR or complaint is not the encyclopedia to contain all the details at the first instance. In the further statement recorded by the investigating officer during investigation, all the witnesses have stated that the petitioner along with the family members insisted the deceased to bring dowry amount from her parental place and in that connection, the petitioner used to give ill treatment and harassment.

Looking to the statement of witnesses more particularly, C.Ws. 2 and 3 who are independent and eye witnesses to the incident, they have clearly stated about involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence. It is true that the medical records produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner goes to show that there was oral statement of Nagma i.e., the deceased and below the said statement, there is LTM and signature of the husband. It is also true that there are eye witnesses to the incident and also the other witnesses who have stated about ill treatment and harassment meted out to the deceased and also the commission of the alleged offence by the petitioner. The statement of the deceased said to have been recorded is a matter to be considered during the course of trial as to whether such a statement was given by the deceased or not. The entire case of the prosecution cannot be rejected when there are direct witnesses to the incident as per case of the prosecution. Apart from that, as submitted by the learned HCGP, the incident has taken place within seven years from the date of marriage of the deceased with petitioner that too in the house of the petitioner. The materials collected during investigation goes to show that immediately prior to the alleged incident, she was subjected to harassment and ill treatment in connection with dowry amount. The materials also go to show that the deceased used to inform her parents over phone about ill treatment and harassment meted out to her in connection with dowry amount. So after the death of the deceased, her statement said to have been made to her parents over the phone amounts to an oral dying declaration. Therefore, considering the materials collected by the investigating officer during investigation, I am of the opinion it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly rejected.