S N Bhagya Reddy vs State Of Karnataka

K. Natarajan, J

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting bail in Crime No.294/2021 (C.C.No.56067/2021) registered by Ramamurthy Nagar Police for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and Sri L.S. Manjunath, learned counsel who assisted the prosecution on behalf of defacto complainant.

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Ranjith, the brother of the deceased-Shruthi has filed a complaint before the Police on 23.08.2021 alleging that the sister of the complainant- Shruthi was given in marriage to accused No.1. Their marriage held on 01.12.2014 at Palace Grounds, Bengaluru. They have spent Rs.1 crore towards her marriage expenditure and they said to be given 2 kgs. of golden ornaments at the demand of the accused persons. Their marriage was solemnized in grand manner. The sister was residing in the house of the accused No.1 and they lived happily for one year six months, later accused No.1 is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the complainant and they said to be paid the said amount to the account of deceased through online transfer. Subsequently, on 20.08.2021, his sister and brother in law-accused No.1 were invited for the Varamahalakshmi Festival celebration. At the time of returning after celebrating festival, accused No.1-the husband of the deceased is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the parents of the deceased. Accordingly, they have give a sum of Rs.35,000/- to accused No.1 and they undertake to pay remaining amount of Rs.65,000/- . Thereafter, they went back to their house.

Subsequently, on 23.08.2021 at about 3.45 p.m. the deceased telephoned to her mother and informed that accused No.1 quarreling with her for non-payment of remaining amount of Rs.65,000/- and he could not have quarreled, if she has paid the entire amount as demanded by accused No.1. Thereafter, she disconnected the telephone call. At about 5.00 p.m. in the evening, accused No.1 telephoned the complainant through land line phone and informed that the sister of the complainant has committed suicide in the house. Immediately, the complainant, his mother and other relatives went to the house of the accused. At that time, the dead body of the deceased was in the Ambulance. When enquired with the Child by name Vihan Uras Reddy, the child aged about 5 years informed that the "Daddy and Amma" insisted his mother to go and die. Subsequently, the case was registered. The police have arrested accused No.1. On 08.09.2021, the present petitioner is said to be surrendered before the Police. Accordingly, she was arrested by the Police and she has been remanded in judicial custody. The police after investigation have filed the charge sheet.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. The entire case evolves only from 20.08.2021, when accused No.1 and the deceased visited the house of the complainant and their marriage was held 5 years back only and there is no complaint against the petitioner and the only allegation against accused No.1 is that he has demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.35,000/- was paid and remaining amount of Rs.65,000/- has not been paid by them. Therefore, he has picked up quarrel with the deceased that was informed by the deceased herself to her mother.

Learned counsel submits that there is no allegations against the present petitioner and the statement of the child reveals that they insisted her to 'go and die', except this statement there was nothing is placed on record to show that the present petitioner also demanded any dowry and harass the deceased mentally and physically in order to attract Section 304B of IPC. She is a woman and widow. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State seriously objected for granting bail and Sri L.S. Manjunath, learned counsel who assisted the High Court Government Pleader and contended that the offence is heinous one. The present petitioner is also participated with accused No.1 and committed murder by hanging the deceased. He alleges that the ligature marks found in the photographs reveals that it is murder. The child witness stated before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statement that the present petitioner and his Daddy- accused No.1 were hanged his mother. Therefore, there is a material placed on record to show that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 304B and 302 of IPC. Hence, they prayed for rejection of the bail petition.

Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and Sri L.S. Manjunath, learned counsel who assisted the High Court Government Pleader and on perusal of the records, especially, the complaint made by one Ranjith, the brother of the deceased reveals that the marriage of the deceased-Shruthi was solemnized with accused No.1 on 01.12.2014. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, they have given 2 Kgs. of golden armaments and their marriage was performed in Palace Grounds by spending nearly one crore rupees. After their marriage, they both lived together happily for one year six months. Thereafter, accused No.1 is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from them. Therefore, his mother given Rs.5 lakhs by transferring the same in the account of the deceased. Thereafter, on 20.08.2021, his Sister-Shruthi and accused No.1 were invited for Varamahalakshmi Pooja celebration in the house of the complainant. At that time, accused No.1 is said to have demanded one lakh rupees, out of which, they have given only Rs.35,000/- and undertake to pay the remaining amount of Rs.65,000/-. Thereafter, accused No.1 said to have quarreled with the deceased and the same was informed by the deceased herself to her mother.

It is further reveals from the records that on 23.08.2021 at about 3.45 p.m. she has informed that he could not have quarreled with her, if the entire amount of Rs.1 lakh paid to him. But she has not stated anything about accused No.2 is also the cause for quarrel or insisting any money from the deceased. Subsequently, on the same day, accused No.1 informed to the complainant about committing suicide by the deceased in the house. Subsequently, the case was registered. Accused No.1 was arrested. By looking into the entire statement of the witnesses regarding death of the deceased is not disputed in the house of the accused as she has committed suicide. Though the learned counsel for the complainant assisted the learned HCGP stated that a photograph reveals that the injuries and scratch marks on the dead body and the post mortem report ligature marks are around the neck, but on perusal of the post mortem report produced by himself which reveals at Sl.No.5, the Doctor has stated that the ligature mark is an obliquely placed and incomplete ligature mark measuring 28 c.m. x 3 c.m present in front and side of the neck which runs upwards backwards on either sides situated 7 c.m. above suprasternal notch, 7 c.m. below the right left ear lobule, skin over the ligature mark is dark, hard parchmentised. On perusal of this ligature mark, it is clearly suggest, it is a suicidal hanging but not homicidal hanging. In homicidal hanging the ligature mark must be encircled and it cannot be obliquely incomplete. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant assisted for the learned HCGP is cannot be acceptable as a homicidal hanging. The Police Officer after the due investigation filed the charge sheet only for the offence under Section 304B of IPC not for the offence under Section 302 of IPC based upon the post mortem report of the Doctor has opined that the death is due to hanging. The FSL report is also not received in order to know whether any poisonous material found in the viscera collected from body of the deceased. The investigation has already been completed. Charge sheet has already been filed. Of course, the statement of the child which was stated before the complainant says that the 'Amma and Daddy statement of the child reveals that both the accused persons have hanged his mother. Therefore, at this stage, the statement of the child cannot be acceptable until the child entering to the witness box. The present petitioner is said to be surrendered before the Police and she was arrested and she is in judicial custody since, 08.09.2021 and she is a woman and widow. Accused No.1 is already arrested by the Police and he is in judicial custody.

By looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and by imposing certain conditions, if the petitioner/accused No.2 is granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER The criminal petition is allowed.

The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.294/2021 (C.C.No.56067/2021) registered by Ramamurthy Nagar Police for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:-

i) Petitioner shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

iii) Petitioner shall not indulge himself in similar offences strictly;

iv) Petitioner shall take the trial without causing any delay; and

v) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission.