Sandeep kumar singh vs The State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the records. Petitioner is the husband of deceased Sneha. The marriage between petitioner-Sandeep Kumar Singh and deceased Sneha solemnised on 22.01.2013. It is alleged that after marriage they lived happily for some time in Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, petitioner and deceased came to reside in Belgaum, as the petitioner was working in Air Force at Belgaum. The charge sheet papers disclose that the relatives of deceased have alleged that petitioner and his family members were consistently demanding for one Alto car and gold ornaments even after the marriage. It is alleged that petitioner has taken Rs. 6,75,000/- and other articles as dowry at the time of marriage. Even though the father of deceased Sneha has informed the petitioner that he is not in a position to provide car and gold chain, petitioner did not desist but has intensified his ill-treatment to Sneha and was physically assaulting and mentally ill-treating her.

It is the allegation of prosecution that being frustrated in life, Sneha has committed suicide when she was alone in the house at Belgaum on 21.08.2013. The statement of witnesses, particularly the neighbourers shows that petitioner and deceased were quarrelling with each other often. There are materials to show that petitioner was not in the house on that day and had been to work at 7.30 a.m. and when he returned at about 2.30 p.m. he has seen the dead body of his wife hanging to the roof of said house. In fact he has made hue and cry and thereby the neighbours have gathered. Looking to the above said factual aspects, the petitioner-accused is a proper person to explain why such an incident has taken place in the house. At this stage, there are sufficient materials to show that immediately after the marriage petitioner and his family members have started demanding for one Alto car and gold articles and even though the father of deceased Sneha has expressed his inability to provide the same, petitioner has intensified ill-treatment to deceased. It has to be established before the Court as to what has happened between husband and wife on that day or previous day and also that there was consistent demand for dowry by means of materials on record. The deceased Sneha has committed suicide within seven months from the date of marriage. Petitioner is the proper person to explain as to what has happened between him and his wife. Atleast something must have happened between husband and wife on the date of incident or on the previous night or on the previous day of incident, otherwise what was the reason for deceased to commit suicide in the house of petitioner. Therefore, all these factual aspects, encircle the accused with strong circumstances, in my opinion, those aspects have to be thrashed out during the course of full dressed trial. The death of Sneha by means of suicide attracts Section 304B of I.P.C. and if there is ill-treatment or harassment soon before the death, it also attracts Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. When the initial presumption has to be raised in favour of prosecution that has to be displaced by the petitioner during the course of trial. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that at this stage there are sufficient materials to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner which disentitles him from getting bail. It is submitted that petitioner has been in judicial custody since 26.08.2013. As a matter of right, liberty of a person cannot be curtailed unnecessarily. Therefore, it is just and necessary for this Court to direct the trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the matter as early as possible. With these observations, petition stands dismissed.