- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2878 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 471 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SURENDRA KUMAR SINGH SON OF HARIHA MAHTO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.104A, GANESH TOWER, BAHADURPUR HOUSING COLONY, PS-AGAMKUAN, PATNA BIHAR-800026. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PURNACHANDRA M. PURANIK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 2. MANISHA KUMARI WIFE OF LATE ABHISHEK, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2159, 12TH MAIN, VIKRAM NAGAR, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI V. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2878 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2024 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2023 IN S.C.NO.330/2022 PASSED BY THE LXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A) AND TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION DATED 01.10.2022 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER SECTION 227 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 (ANNEXURE-E). THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and also the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This revision petition is filed against the order of discharge dated 21.08.2023 passed in S.C.No.330/2022 on the file of LXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. 3. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that the scope of the discharge is very limited and Court has to take note of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2878 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2024 only material collected by the I.O. The Trial Court instead of considering the material on record, considered the defense of the accused while discharging the accused. The counsel brought to notice of paragraph No.14 wherein discussion was made that the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that except the complainant and family members, none of the independent witness have stated against the accused person. Apart from that an observation is made that parents and the relatives of the deceased were residing at Patna, Bihar deceased and accused were residing in Bengaluru, thus family members have not having first hand opinion. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that the Trial Court taken note of the document placed by the accused i.e., photographs regarding earlier incident is concerned and relied upon those photographs and comes to the conclusion that no material is placed and also an observation is made that photographs shows that accused suffered severe fracture, fatal injuries to the body and face. The Trial Court ought not to have relied upon the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2878 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2024 defense document of the accused while considering the discharge application and the same is against the settled principle of law. 4. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 768 in case of M.E.Shivaliingamurthy V/s Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru wherein Apex Court regarding the scope of Section 227 held that relevant consideration by Court at this stage and only material collected by the I.O and consideration of defense of accused that the documents produced by him is not permissible and also held that in the present case, the Trial Court erroneously discharge the appellant-accused based on version of appellant, all of which were matter of defence which could not be looked into while considering the discharge petition and hence the judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand. 5. The counsel for respondent in his argument would vehemently contend that the Court taken note of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2878 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2024 the details of the material collected by the I.O and only family members of the deceased statements are recorded. The counsel also in support of his argument he relies upon the photographs of the respondent No.2 injured and medical report pertaining to the respondent No.2 issued by the KIMS hospital and so also the medical reports pertains to the respondent No.2 issued by the Baba Vims Speciality Hospital and so also the medical reports pertaining to the respondent No.2 issued by the Sagar Hospitals and bank statement of ICICI bank and HDFC bank and also the screenshot of the amount paid by the respondent No.2. The counsel referring these documents would contend that the Court has taken note of material placed before the Court and rightly discharge the respondent No.2. 6. The counsel appearing for the State would contend that during the course of the investigation, recorded the statement of friends of the deceased, relatives and also the neighbors. Hence, the very observation made by the Trial Court is erroneous. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2878 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2024 7. Having heard the revision petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra by the revision petitioner’s counsel, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court are: 1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in discharging the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C? 2) What Order? 8. Having heard the counsel for revision petitioner and also the counsel for respondent No.2 and also the counsel for State, it is not in dispute that case was registered at the first instance when the deceased committed the suicide. The case of the prosecution is also that Police registered the case and investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet and during the course of the investigation, recorded the statement of the family members of the deceased as well as neighbor and also the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2878 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2024 friend of the deceased who is the colleague of the deceased. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and counsel also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.14 wherein the Trial Court made an observation that in this scenario let us examine charge sheet and annexed documents and also an observation is made that on behalf of the accused, except complainant and his family members, none of the independent witness have stated anything against the accused person and investigating officer has not examined neighboring residents at the place of incident and the said observation is erroneous. 10. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner brought to notice of this Court statement recorded by I.O who are neighbors who went to the spot immediately having heard the hue and cry and found the house was locked and also the accused was sustained injuries. Apart from that the Trial Court no doubt made an - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2878 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2024 observation that relatives of the deceased were at Patna, the accused and deceased were residing at Bengaluru and their statements cannot be believed. These observations cannot be look into while considering the discharge application. The Court has to look into whether the material collected by the I.O is suffice to proceed against the accused. 11. It is also important to note that Trial Court even looked into the document placed by the accused i.e., photographs wherein the deceased burnt her hand with hot iron box and these are the documents could not be looked into while considering the discharge application and defence cannot be considered at the time of the considering the discharge application and only material collected by the I.O should be looked into. In the case on hand, the Trial Court committed an error in coming to a conclusion that no independent witness statement has been recorded and the same is against the records available on record apart from that looked into the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2878 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2024 documents placed by the accused. The counsel appearing for the respondent also placed the documents before this Court showing that on the date of the incident, he assaulted the accused. No doubt photographs discloses regarding injuries sustained by the respondent/wife of the deceased and all these documents cannot be looked into at the time of consideration of discharge application and law is also settled regarding the scope of Section 227 is concerned. The judgment relied upon by the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner aptly applicable to the case on hand and the judgment referred supra held that consideration of defence of accused and documents produced by him cannot be permitted and no such documents can be permitted while considering the discharge application. The Apex Court made an observation that Trial Court had erroneously discharge the appellant-accused based on version of appellant, all of which were matter of defence which could not be looked into while considering the discharge petition and hence reversal of discharge by High Court is affirmed. In the case - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2878 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2024 on hand also as I have already pointed out that the Trial Court committed an error in looking into the documents of the defense which have been placed by the respondent- accused. Apart from that coming to the conclusion that no independent witness statement is recorded and the material clearly discloses that colleague of the deceased was also recorded regarding the harassment and abatement as well as the neighboring witnesses have also been examined and their statements were also recorded and hence the Trial Court committed an error in discharging the accused and it requires interference of this Court and hence I answer the point as Affirmative. 12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Revision Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 21.08.2023 passed in S.C.No.330/2022 on the file of LXIV Addl. City Civil and - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2878 CRL.RP No. 471 of 2024 Sessions Judge is set-aside. The Trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45