LAWS(KAR)-2020-12-157

MUKUNDA K. G. Vs. STATE

Decided On December 01, 2020
Mukunda K. G. Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 4 challenging the order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Court of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in S.C.No.73/2012 allowing the application filed under Section 216 read with Section 221 of the Cr.P.C, and thereby seeking to set aside the same.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel Shri Shashidhara H.N. who appears through video conferencing and the learned HCGP for the State who is present before court physically. It transpires that charge-sheet was laid by the I.O. against the accused relating to the case in S.C.No.73/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304B, 114 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860, besides Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Subsequent to laying the chargesheet by the Investigating Agency, the case has been committed to the Sessions Court for trial. Accordingly, the case in S.C.No.73/2012 has been assigned before the Court of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere. Subsequent to assigning that case for trial, charges were framed against the accused on 9.6.2015. The plea was also recorded by the Trial Court. Subsequent to framing of charges, the case has been set down for trial. Consequently, the trial has open and the prosecution has subjected to examination several witnesses in S.C.No.73/2012 and so also had marked several documents in order to prove the guilt of the accused. Subsequent to closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the case was set down for hearing arguments on the part of the prosecution as well as on the part of the defence counsel, but in this petition, by order dated 16.09.2016, this Court has passed a restraint order restraining the court below from passing the judgment until further orders, which indicates that the entire case of the prosecution has been closed after recording the incriminating statements of the accused as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the case has been set down for arguments and thereafter set down for rendering a judgment in S.C.No.73/2012. In the meanwhile, when trial was on in S.C.No.73/2012, the prosecution had filed an application under Section 216 read with Section 221 of the Cr.P.C. vide Annexure-'C' seeking to invoke the provisions of Section 306 of IPC relating to the death of the deceased Latha, who committed suicide as indicated in the substance of the charge-sheet laid by the I.O. against the accused.

(3.) Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the objection filed by the defence counsel to resist the application filed by the prosecution wherein it is contended that the charges were framed against the accused in respect of the major offences under Section 498A, 302, 114, 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC, besides Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The offences indicated in the charge-sheet has been framed by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution was led in order to prove the guilt of the accused. But it is stated that the entire family of Smt. Latha were suffering from mental disorder and depression. PW-1 had been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution, wherein he has stated that their son-inlaw namely Mukunda was by avocation a driver in a private bus. He had left the house for attending work in the morning and he used to return home in the night but it was alleged that he had given some sort of harassment to their daughter deceased Latha, as there were some disputes in between the wife and husband regarding the aspect that her husband was having an illicit intimacy with another woman. It is in evidence in certain portion of PW-1 and also elucidation in the cross-examination of PW-1. But it is only on the appreciation of the evidence which is the domain vested with the Trial Court and even other witnesses also. Whereas the learned counsel has mainly taken contention and also emphasised that there is no iota of evidence on the part of the prosecution against Accused Nos.1 to 4 to charge them under Section 306 of the IPC, 1860. Therefore, at a belated stage, the prosecution filing an application under Section 216 read with section 221 of the Cr.P.C. does not arise and deserves to have been dismissed at the threshold. On all these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to allow this petition by setting aside the order passed by the Court of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in S.C.No.73/2012 dated 26.07.2016 allowing the application invoking the offence under Section 306 IPC for framing of a charge and proceeding with the case for trial.