Vinaya Kumar vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The present petition is filed for a direction for re-investigation of the case by CCB Police pertaining to the charge sheet already filed before CCH-46, which is culminated in S.C. No. 1484/2012.

The factual aspects disclose that the jurisdictional police viz., SHO, Parappana Agrahara, registered a case in Crime No. 28/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w. Section 34 of IPC on the complaint filed by the brother of the deceased Smt. Kavitha H. Reddy, who was given in marriage to Mr. H.Y. Srinivasa Reddy, Accused No. 1 in the said case, about nine years prior to the alleged incident. After the marriage, they lived for some years together and thereafter, ill-treatment was started and subsequently, she died an unnatural death. On the basis of the said report, the police have investigated the matter and submitted a charge sheet before the court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the jurisdictional police have miserably failed to collect tangible evidence and they have filed a misleading charge sheet before the court. It is contended that, though it is a murder, the police have investigated the case and filed charge sheet only for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The main ground urged before this court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are three Post-mortem Reports before the Trial Court and one of the Post-mortem Reports clearly reveal that the death of the deceased was due to compression of the neck and subsequent Post-mortem Report reveal that it was a suicide. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the said documents have not been properly understood by the police. The second ground urged by the learned counsel is that all the eye-witnesses have not been properly examined by the police. However, learned counsel for the respondent brought to my notice and supported by the learned HCGP that the witnesses have already been examined by the police even including one of the children of the deceased. On these two counts, learned counsel submits that the police have submitted a false charge sheet before the court. Learned counsel also submitted that the complainant made an application before the court u/s 302 of Cr.P.C. to permit the counsel for the complainant to assist the learned Public Prosecutor during trial in order to bring-out the truth before the Court. The said application is still pending consideration before the Trial Court.

Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the firm opinion that no ground is made-out for re-investigation of the case, because of the simple reason that the witnesses who have already been examined by the police, some are already cited as eye-witnesses in the charge sheet. Further, the documents which are relied upon by the complainant are also already before the Court and the Court will get sufficient opportunity to meticulously look into these documents at the time of trial. Even otherwise, Section 311 of Cr.P.C. provides ample powers to the court to summon any witnesses or summon any documents to the court in order to find-out the truth and to adjudicate the rights of the parties in proper perspective. If the complainant is not satisfied with the investigation done by the police, who will be before the court as a victim, can definitely exercise the rights conferred u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. and make a necessary application to the court to summon any witnesses before the court. Learned counsel has submitted that his application is still pending before the court u/s 302 of Cr.P.C. I do not know as to what is the reason and why the court has not yet disposed of the said application. It could be ascertained from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the court has already framed the charges against the accused persons and it is set-down for evidence on the side of the prosecution. Even Section 216 of Cr.P.C. empowers the court that, during the course of the evidence if the court comes to the conclusion that the offence sought to be made-out are different from that of the one for which the charges have already been framed, the Court is also empowered to alter the charges at any point of time before pronouncing the judgment by following certain procedures contemplated in Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, looking into above said provisions and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the remedy lies before the Trial Court itself and that has to be explored properly by the complainant and his counsel. Therefore, there is no room for passing any orders for re-investigation or directing the court to refer the matter to the police for further investigation or re-investigation.

In view of the above said reasons, I do not find any strong reasons to entertain this petition. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. However, as a matter of abundant caution, it is directed that the Trial Court has to pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the learned counsel on behalf of the complainant seeking permission to assist the Public Prosecutor in order to bring-out the truth before the Court. The Trial Court has to make all its endeavor to dispose of the said application before proceeding with the trial. If the complainant is not satisfied with the proceedings before the court even by giving assistance to the Public Prosecutor, there are ample provisions to make an application for change of the Prosecutor, if needed.

In the above said circumstances, the provisions under Criminal Procedure Code empowers the complainant to take appropriate steps before the Trial Court itself. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merit hence, the same is dismissed, without admitting.