Police SI Charged with Causing Wife’s Dowry Death, Caste Abuse denied Bail by Karnataka High Court

Justice Muhammad Nawaz concluded that there was a prima facie case against the accused based on the prosecution’s evidence and that, in the event that he was granted bail, he would probably tamper with the evidence.

A Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) was recently denied bail by the Karnataka High Court on charges of caste abuse and causing his wife’s dowry death.

Justice Muhammad Nawaz concluded that there was a prima facie case against the accused based on the prosecution’s evidence and that, in the event that he was granted bail, he would probably tamper with the evidence.

“A prima facie case has been established against the appellant for the offenses charged against him based on the evidence gathered by the prosecution. The Court noted in its order dated December 19 that “there is every chance of tampering the prosecution evidence, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent, in the event of bail grant to the appellant.”

The accused police officer was appealing a session court order that had denied him bail, and the court was considering his appeal.

The father of the accused’s late wife had filed a complaint against him, claiming that the accused and his family had verbally and physically abused his late daughter.

The complaint claims that one day, when the daughter did not pick up the phone, her neighbor called the complainant (father) to let him know that she had been admitted to the hospital. The complainant learned that his daughter had died when he arrived at the hospital.

Following this tragic event, a complaint was filed under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) alleging charges of cruelty and Section 304B of the IPC regarding dowry death. The complaint also contained claims made in violation of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

As a result, a chargesheet was submitted against the PSI, citing the IPC’s Sections 498A and 304B as well as the Atrocities Act’s Section 3(2)(v), the Dowry Prohibition Act’s Sections 3 and 4.

The police officer who was accused argued that the accusations were untrue and that his late wife had not made any accusations against him in her death note.

In addition, he argued that as a PSI, he and his family were self-sufficient and didn’t need a dowry.

Additionally, he emphasized that he knew his wife’s caste for years prior to their marriage, and that if he had discriminated against caste, he would not have wed her.

However, the complainant emphasized that the death was questionable because the only people who occupied the house were the deceased and the accused. The prosecution also emphasized that the body had both internal and external injuries, according to the post-mortem report.

It was further argued that the accused could tamper with evidence if he were released on bail and that the note was a forgery.

The Court acknowledged the external and internal injuries and declared that it was not possible to investigate the accuracy of the death note at this time.

Therefore, the Court dismissed the police officer’s appeal and denied him bail, finding that there was a prima facie case against him and acknowledging the possibility that he tampered with evidence.

Ramesh SV v State of Karnataka

Leave a Comment