Karnataka High Court Reverses Order Discharging Wife For Bigamy, First Husband's Murder; Says Trial Necessary To Appreciate Evidence
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the Sessions Court discharging a woman accused of bigamy and hatching a conspiracy with her second husband to murder her first husband. A single judge bench of Justice Dr. HB Prabhakara Sastry observed that there is sufficient material to proceed with the trial against Mamatha R., who allegedly killed her first husband to retain a...
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the Sessions Court discharging a woman accused of bigamy and hatching a conspiracy with her second husband to murder her first husband.
A single judge bench of Justice Dr. HB Prabhakara Sastry observed that there is sufficient material to proceed with the trial against Mamatha R., who allegedly killed her first husband to retain a property devolved upon their minor daughter in family partition.
"It is beyond any doubt or dispute that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court will not weigh the evidence. The stage for appreciating the evidence for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether the prosecution was able to bring home the charge against the accused or not would arise only after all the evidence is brought on record at the trial."
A charge-sheet was filed against Mamatha for offences punishable under Sections 302 (Murder), 493, 494, 496 (Bigamy), 120-B (Criminal conspiracy) and 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence) read with Section 34 of IPC.
She was said to have married one Manjunath YD, also an accused, during the period her first husband (now deceased) went missing. However, when the first husband returned after a span of some 1.5 years and demanded custody of their daughter, the duo allegedly hatched a conspiracy to cause his death.
The trial Court had allowed Mamatha's application for discharge on the ground that investigation was improper, the offence of Bigamy (non-cognizable) cannot be investigated by the Police and no tangible material has been brought on record to show any criminal conspiracy.
Findings
Upon a perusal of the chargesheet and witnesses statements recorded by the police, the Court noted that prosecution had produced ample material to prosecute prosecute Mamatha for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC.
"When a complaint comprises both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, the investigating agency i.e., the police are required to treat all the offences cognizable and proceed to investigate the case and to submit the charge sheet for all the offences, cognizable or non-cognizable both, provided it is found by the police during investigation that offences alleged prima facie have been committed."
So far as the offence of Murder is concerned, the Court observed that even though none of the chargesheet witnesses alleged any direct overt act against Mamatha, however, the allegations w.r.t. retention of partition property attributes "mens rea" and thus, it is only during the course of the trial that the conspiracy, if any, between the accused can be established by the prosecution.
"Since it is observed above that there are sufficient materials to proceed with the trial against Mamatha R., (original accused No.3), the Sessions Judge's Court was at error in allowing her application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and discharging her from the alleged offences. As such, the said order deserves to be set aside and her application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. deserved to be dismissed."
Case Title: K.C.Ramu @ Ramanna v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.206 OF 2018 C/w. CRIMINAL PETITION No.711 OF 2018 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.7026 OF 2019.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 325
Date of Order: 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022
Appearance: Advocate Ashok B.Patil for petitioner; HCGP K.Nageshwarappa, for R-1; Advocate C.N.Raju, for R-2