K. Ramesh vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 498, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No. 31/2015. Later, the offence under Section 306 of IPC was also inserted in the case.

Brief facts of the prosecution case that the mother of the deceased lodged the complaint stating that in the year 2013, the complainant had given her daughter Yashoda (deceased) to petitioner-accused No. 1 in marriage and at the time of marriage, as per the demand made by the accused persons, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- cash, out of Rs. 50,000/- and 2 tolas of gold was given as dowry. The remaining dowry amount i.e., Rs. 20,000/- was agreed to be paid after the marriage. It is further alleged that the accused have looked after the deceased well for about 1 1/2 years after the marriage and thereafter they started giving physical and mental cruelty to her to bring remaining dowry amount of Rs. 20,000/-. During the month of January 2015, the petitioner along with his wife Yashoda have came to the house of complainant to celebrate village festival and during that time petitioner had demanded remaining dowry amount of Rs. 20,000/-. The complainant did not pay and informed him that she had spent the amount towards the delivery expenses of her daughter-in-law and she would pay the remaining dowry amount after some time. On hearing this, petitioner left his wife in complainant''s house and returned back to his native place. After few days, accused No. 2/mother of accused No. 1 visited to the house of complainant and taken back the daughter-in-law (deceased) to the matrimonial home. It is further alleged that since from the date of taking back the deceased to the matrimonial home, accused persons have not giving cell phone to the daughter of complainant to talk with the complainant and her family members. Further that about 15 days prior to lodging of FIR, the daughter of complainant had called to her mother through petitioner''s cell phone and informed that petitioner/accused No. 1 and accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been abusing her, stating that without doing any work, she is eating and also abused her that she is incapable to bring the remaining dowry amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Further they instigated her daughter to commit suicide by consuming anything as she had failed to bring remaining dowry amount. Petitioner was threatening the deceased stating that they will perform another marriage to petitioner/accused No. 1.

On 14.03.2015 at 6.00 p.m. petitioner informed over phone to the elder son of complainant that his sister consumed pesticide, which was kept to sprinkle to cotton crop and they are taking her to hospital. Again at 10.00 p.m. petitioner informed over phone that his wife has breathed her last. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered for the alleged offences against the petitioner and other two accused persons.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 1 and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that false allegations are made that there was a demand for the dowry for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was already paid and Rs. 20,000/- was remaining, which was to be paid after the marriage. Even according to the complaint averments the couples led happy marital life for about 1 1/2 year, hence, submitted that the further allegations that they started giving ill-treatment for remaining dowry amount is a false story of the prosecution. It is his contention that regarding the allegation that the deceased was assaulted by the petitioner and other family members, the medical report i.e., Post-mortem report, clearly shows that there are no injuries on the body of the deceased, which falsifies the contention of the prosecution. It is further contented that accused Nos. 2 and 3 have already been enlarged on bail. Hence, on the ground of parity also, petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail.

Per contra, learned HCGP has submitted that the death has taken place in the house of the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased. It has taken place within two years from the date of marriage. Looking to the prosecution material there is prima-facie evidence to show that deceased was subjected to cruel treatment. Therefore, the provision of Section 304B of IPC will also be attracted as it is a dowry death. Learned HCGP has submitted that, even if, it is assumed that deceased consumed poison and committed suicide in that case also it is abetment to commit suicide. She has submitted that materials on record show that because of the ill-treatment and harassment by the petitioner and other family members, the incident has taken place. She has also submitted that the ground of parity is not made applicable to the petitioner. Hence, submitted to reject the petition.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, the post-mortem report and other materials produced along with the petition.

It is the allegation in the compliant by the mother of the deceased that there was a demand for dowry of Rs. 50,000/-, and 2 tolas of gold and they have given only a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and 2 tolas of gold and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- they were to be given after the marriage. With regard to the remaining amount of Rs. 20,000/-, her daughter was subjected to cruel treatment by the petitioner and other family members.

I have perused the statement of witnesses, recorded by the Investigating Officer who are the neighbours; in their statement, they have stated about the quarrel in the house so also the ill-treatment meted-out to the deceased. It is no doubt true, in the PM report, the doctor has mentioned that there are no demonstrable external injuries over the body of the deceased, but only on that basis it cannot be assumed at this stage, that there is no harassment or ill-treatment. The witnesses, whose statement were recorded by the IO clearly shows about the harassment for the remaining amount of Rs. 20,000/-. The incident has taken place in the house of petitioner and it is within seven years from the date of marriage and when taken to the hospital, the death has taken place.

I have gone through the bail order passed in respect of accused Nos. 2 and 3. In the said order, this Court has observed that considering their age and accused No. 2 being women, granted bail to accused Nos. 2 and so far as accused No. 3, it is observed that he is the husband of sister of accused No. 1. Therefore, as submitted by the learned HCGP, the ground of parity is not made applicable to the petitioner since he being the husband and primarily accountable to the incident that how the incident has happened in the house. Considering these materials so also the seriousness of the offence, I am of the opinion that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. Accordingly, petition is rejected.