Insufficient evidence against accused to establish charges under 304B, 302, or 201 IPC; discharge granted while retaining lesser charges under 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.

ORDER :

S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

1. Accused nos.3 & 4 are before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the order dated 12.01.2018 passed in S.C.No.591/2015 by the Court of LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Petitioners herein who are arrayed as accused nos.3 & 4 in S.C.No.591/2015 pending on the file of the Court of LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, are charge- sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 201 read with 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, along with accused no.1.

4. In the said proceedings, the petitioners had filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.PC with a prayer to discharge them from the charge-sheeted offences. The said application was opposed by the prosecution.

5. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of Cr.PC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that petitioner no.1/accused no.3 is the paternal uncle of accused no.1- husband, petitioner no.2/accused no.4 is the mother of accused no.1. Petitioner no.1 is the resident of Kanakapura Taluk and petitioner no.2 is the resident of Channapatna Taluk. Accused no.1 and his wife who is the deceased in the present case were undisputedly residing in Bengaluru and the death had taken in their house at Bengaluru. There is no allegation against the petitioners that they had harassed or ill-treated the deceased in furtherance of demand for payment of dowry immediately prior to the alleged date of incident. Only for the reason that petitioners are the near relatives of accused no.1, they have been falsely implicated in the criminal case. The allegations against the petitioners is omnibus and baseless. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

7. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. He submits that in the first information as well as in the charge sheet, there is an allegation that petitioners herein had not only demanded dowry at the time of marriage of the deceased with accused no.1, but even thereafter they had made further demand for payment of additional dowry. It is also alleged that petitioners used to frequently visit the house of accused no.1 and the deceased at Bengaluru and were ill-treating and harassing the deceased in furtherance of their demand for additional dowry. The Trial Court, therefore, was justified in dismissing the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.PC. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

8. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the marriage of accused no.1 - Ashok with deceased Vasantha was solemnized on 25.02.2010. The alleged incident has taken place on 31.07.2014. The first information in the present case is submitted by Ramadas (CW-1) who is the father of deceased Vasantha. In the first information, he has averred that at the time of marriage of accused no.1 with his daughter Vasantha, he had paid dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and also had given gold ornaments and other valuables as dowry to his son-in-law who is accused no.1 in the present case. He has also stated that after the marriage, accused no.1 and his daughter Vasantha were residing in Bengaluru and for a period of one year she was looked after properly and from the wedlock, a male child was born to them. He has averred that accused nos.1 to 4 had demanded a further dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- for the purpose o