K BASAVAPURNA RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is unfortunate father who lodged complainant at the respondent police station informing of the sad demise of his daughter while living in matrimony with her husband. THE report was registered as FIR initially for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian penal code, 1860 and Section 304-B regarding unnatural death of his daughter Lakshmi. THE police officers after investigating filed charge-sheet against husband and others for offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC but did not file any report regarding the alleged overt acts of the accused in committing for the murder. THE case was further inquired into and despite his repeated and fervent request no action taken. He was, therefore, upset and applied to this Court in W.P. no. 5893 of 1991 complaining of inaction on the part of the Investigation Officer in conducting investigation and on the part of the State in being silent spectator to the inaction on the part of the police.

(2.) THIS Court considered the grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No. 5893 of 1991 and did appreciate the grievance and it allowed the petition and directed the Trial Court before whom charge-sheet was filed, to consider the application of petitioner filed under Section 173(8) of Cr. P.C. for reference to any other investigation agency like CBI. The direction of this Court was to require the Trial Court to bestow its serious concern to the nature of allegations made by the complainant, examine the nature of investigation done and after it is noticed that the investigation was not in the right direction or that the serious allegations made by the complainant regarding death of his daughter and the suspicions sounded by him against the sister-in-law and others was not properly investigated, then to direct the investigation by independent agency like CBI. The said direction of this Court was received by the learned Sessions Court dealing in SC.No. 52 of 1991. Even at such direction of this Court , the Sessions Court in a casual manner has disposed of the application not referring the matter to police/investigation agency.

(3.) THE learned Trial Judge to whom this Court had directed reconsideration of the application filed by the petitioner, despite noticing the said allegation, opined that the Investigation Officer has taken into consideration all the statement of witnesses and has reached a logical conclusion and the maximum charge that could be leveled was only Section 304-B of IPC. It is quite obvious, learned Trial Judge did not realise the fact that main grievance of the complainant was that material evidence which was also available apart from what was collected by the prosecution, there was additional incriminating material available which establishes the charge against the accused for offence under Section 302 of IPC. In other words, the partisan attitude of the Investigation Officer was the main grievance. Ignoring incriminating evidence during investigation was the serious allegation made. It is for this reason, this Court also opined that on consideration of nature of allegations, it was necessary to direct the Trial Court to consider fresh investigation by CBI, which has not been done.