Bangalore District Court
Police Against The Accused Persons For ... vs Persons Have Committed The Offence ... on 28 October, 2017
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017
PRESENT
Sri. T.N. INAVALLY, B.A.L., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C. No.664/2011
C/w
S.C.No.644/2012
BETWEEN
The State of Karnataka
By Gangammanagudi police station,
Bengaluru. .... COMPLAINANT
(By the Public Prosecutor)
AND
1. Ashok Kumar @ Ashoka, S/o Gopal,
Aged about 29 years,
R/at No.9, Behind Government School,
Thammenahalli Cross,
Thotada Guddadahalli, Bengaluru. .... ACCUSED NO.1 in
S.C.No.664/2011
(By Sri. Aravind M. Neglur, Advocate)
2. Smt. Kanthamma W/o C. Gopal,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at No.9, Behind Government School,
Thammenahalli Cross,
Thotada Guddadahalli, Bengaluru.
3. Kum. Vijayalakshmi, D/o C. Gopal,
Aged about 23 years,
R/at No.9, Behind Government School,
Thammenahalli Cross,
Thotada Guddadahalli, Bengaluru. .... ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 in
S.C.No.644/2012
(By Sri. Aravind M. Neglur, Advocate)
2 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
These cases are the result of charge sheet filed by the
complainant Police against the accused persons for the offence
punishable under Sec. 498-A and 304-B r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal
Code ('IPC' for short) and Section 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act
('the Act' for short).
2. The prosecution was set into motion against the accused
persons on the information of C.W.1 Smt. Manjula, the mother of
deceased Sunitha. The case of prosecution is that the deceased
Sunitha married accused No.1 on 06.12.2007 at Gangadhareshwara
Kalayana Mantapa, Kereguddadahalli. The accused No.1 is husband,
the accused No.2 is mother-in-law and the accused No.3 is sister-in-
law of the deceased Sunitha. After the marriage, the deceased Sunitha
was residing with the accused persons in the matrimonial home at
No.9, behind school, Thammenahalli Cross, Thotada Guddadahalli,
Bengaluru within the jurisdiction of complainant police station. In the
marriage, the accused No.1 along with the accused No.2 and 3
received an amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash and one gold chain, one
long chain, bracelet and 12 Sovran of gold ornaments to bride and one
Motor bike valued at Rs.50,000/- as dowry. After the marriage, for 4
months the deceased Sunitha was living with the accused persons
3 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
happily. Thereafter, the accused persons stated to ill-treat the
deceased Sunitha demanding her to bring more dowry and also to get
the property of C.W.1. Smt. Manjula, the mother of the deceased
Sunitha, in their name as dowry. Thereafter on 19.01.2011 at about
9.40 - 10.45 a.m. in the house of C.W.1 at 15th Cross, Anjanappa
Building, Kammagondanahalli, Bengaluru within the jurisdiction of
complainant police station, the deceased Sunitha died of committing
suicide by hanging without bearing with the ill-treatment and
harassment meted out to her by the accused persons. Thereby the
accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Section
498-A, 304-B r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec. 3, 4 and 6 of the Act.
3. After completion of investigation, the complainant police filed
charge sheet against the accused persons before the learned
Magistrate for the said offence. At the initial stage, the accused No.1
was in judicial custody. Thereafter, he has been released on bail. The
accused No.2 and 3 were absconding. Hence, the charge sheet was
filed against the accused No.1 and the split-up charge sheet was filed
against the accused No.2 and 3. Thereafter, the accused No.2 and 3
got enlarged on bail and they appeared before the learned Magistrate.
4. The learned Magistrate has furnished copy of the charge to
the accused persons and hence, the provision of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. is
4 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
complied with. As the offence alleged against the accused persons is
exclusively triable by this Court. The learned Magistrate acting under
Section 209 of Cr.P.C. has committed the case to this Court for trial.
Consequently, the matter has been taken up before this Court for
further proceedings. As the accused No.2 and 3 did not appear earlier
along with the accused No.1 before the learned Magistrate. Hence, as
stated herein above, the split-up charge sheet was filed against the
accused No.2 and 3. Hence, the case has been registered against the
accused No.1 in C.C.No.664/2011 and thereafter the case has been
registered against the accused No.2 and 3 in S.C.No.644/2012 in view
of the split-up charge sheet filed against them.
5. In pursuance of service of summons, all the accused No.1 to
3 have appeared through their counsel and they have got enlarged on
bail.
6. Earlier this case was pending before Fast Track Court - IX,
Bengaluru City and hence, the learned Judge of the said Court has
framed charge against the accused persons for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A, 304-B and 302 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3, 4
and 6 of the Act, to which the accused persons have pleaded not guilty
and thereby they have claimed to be tried of the said offences.
5 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
7. As both the cases have arisen from the same incident, both
these cases are clubbed together for adducing common evidence and
also for disposal of the same by common judgment.
8. In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has
examined 21 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.22. The prosecution has
produced 25 documents at Exs.P.1 to P.25. The prosecution has also
produced properties at M.O.1 to M.O.6 on its behalf. After closing the
evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court has recorded the
statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in
which the accused persons have denied the incriminating materials
forthcoming against them in the prosecution evidence as false.
Further, the accused persons have chosen to adduce their defence
evidence. Hence, in support of the defence put forth by the accused
persons, they have examined one witness as D.W.1. They have also
got marked documents at Exs.D.1 to D.5 on their behalf in the
evidence of prosecution witnesses.
9. Heard the argument of the learned Prosecutor and also the
counsel for accused persons. Perused the oral and documentary
evidence on record. Now the points that arise for my consideration
are:
6 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that the accused No.1 having married the
deceased Sunitha on 06.12.2007, he being the
husband and the accused No.2 and 3 being mother-in-
law and sister-in-law respectively of the deceased, with
common intension demanded and thereby took gold
ornaments, cash amount and also Motor cycle as
dowry and after the marriage also they demanded to
give further dowry and thereby the accused persons
have committed offence punishable u/s.3 and 4 of the
Act r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that the accused No.1 being the husband and
the accused No.2 and 3 being mother-in-law and
sister-in-law respectively of the deceased, with
common intension used the things taken as dowry for
their personal purpose and they did not use the same
for welfare of the deceased Sunitha and thereby the
accused persons have committed offence punishable
u/s.6 of the Act r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that the accused No.1 being husband and
accused No.2 and 3 being mother-in-law and sister-in-
law of the deceased Sunitha with common intension
subjected her to physical and mental cruelty
demanding her to bring amount and also to get the
property registered in their name as dowry from her
parents house and thereby the accused persons have
committed an offence punishable u/s.498-A r/w Sec.34
of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that the accused No.1 to 3 being husband,
mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased
Sunitha, having subjected the deceased to physical and
mental cruelty, without bearing with such cruelty and
harassment on 19.01.2011 at about 9.40 to 10.45 a.m.
in the house of her mother - CW-1 the deceased
Sunitha committed suicide by hanging and thereby the
accused persons caused death of the deceased Sunitha
and she died within 7 years of the date of her marriage
and thereby the accused persons have committed the
offence punishable u/s.304-B and 302 r/w Sec.34 of
IPC?
7 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
5. What order?
10. After hearing the argument of both the parties and on
considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, my findings
on the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1: In the negative
Point No.2: In the negative
Point No.3: In the negative
Point No.4: In the negative
Point No.5: As per final order
For the following:
REASONS
11. Points No.1 to 4: All these points are taken up for
consideration together for convenience and also for avoiding repetition
of discussion on the facts of the case and also regarding point of law.
12. As discussed herein above, the prosecution was set into
motion against the accused persons on the complaint of C.W.1 Smt.
Manjula, the mother of deceased Sunitha. The fact that the marriage
of deceased Sunitha with the accused No.1 was solemnized on
06.12.2007 at Gangadhareshwara Kalyana Mantapa, Kereguddadahalli
as per rights and customs prevailing in the family is not in dispute. It is
also not in dispute that the accused No.2 is mother-in-law and the
accused No.3 is sister-in-law of the deceased Sunitha. Further, it is
8 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
pertinent to note that the deceased Sunitha died in the house of C.W.1
is not in dispute.
13. As per the prosecution case, the deceased Sunitha died of
committing suicide on 19.01.2011 in the house of C.W.1 in between
9.40 - 10.45 a.m. by hanging using saree tied to ceiling fan. However,
as per the defence put forth by the accused persons, the way in which
the death of deceased Sunitha was caused is in doubt. The offence
charge sheeted against the accused persons is punishable under
Section 498-A and 304-B r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec. 3, 4 and 6 of the
Act. However, when the charge is framed against the accused persons,
the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is also included along
with the offence charge sheeted against the accused persons.
Therefore, unless the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt
that the accused persons with common intention subjected the
deceased Sunitha to ill-treatment and harassment demanding dowry
and due to such ill-treatment and harassment by the accused persons,
the deceased Sunitha died of committing suicide, no case can be made
out against the accused persons for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A, 304-B r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
14. Moreover, unless the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused persons demanded dowry as
9 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
alleged and thereby received dowry for and in connection with the
marriage of the deceased Sunitha with the accused No.1 and that after
the marriage the accused persons subjected the deceased Sunitha to
ill-treatment and harassment demanding to bring more dowry and also
to get the property registered standing in the name of her mother-
C.W.1 registered in the name of accused persons, no case can be
made out against the accused persons for the offence punishable
under Section 3, 4 and 6 of the Act. Further, unless the prosecution
proves that with common intention, the accused persons were the
cause for death of the deceased Sunitha, absolutely no case can be
made out against the accused persons for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC.
15. As pointed out by the counsel for accused persons, as per
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2013 AIR SCW 200
(Kashmir Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab) the ingredients of the
offence of dowry death punishable under Section 304-B of IPC are as
hereunder:
(a) To attract the provisions of Section 304-B, Indian
Penal Code the main ingredient of the offence to be
established is that soon before the death of the
deceased she was subjected to cruelty and
harassment in connection with the demand of dowry.
(b) The death of the deceased woman was caused by any
burn order bodily injury order some other
circumstance which was not normal.
10 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
(c) Such death occurs within seven years from the date of
her marriage.
(d) That the victim was subjected to cruelty order
harassment by her husband order any relative of her
husband.
(e) Such cruelty order harassment should be for order in
connection with demand of dowry, and
(f) It should be established that such cruelty and
harassment was made soon before her death.
Further, it is held in the said decision that:
"Expression 'soon before' the death under Section 304-B of IPC
implies that interval between harassment and death should not be
much and live link should exist between dowry related cruelty and
death."
Hence, in this background of principles of law, the evidence of
witnesses forthcoming from the prosecution and also the evidence of
witnesses examined by the accused persons as defence evidence
should be assessed.
16. As discussed herein above, the prosecution was set into
motion against the accused persons on the information of C.W.1
Manjula. The fact that she is mother of the deceased Sunitha is not in
dispute. The C.W.1 has been examined as P.W.1. In her evidence she
has deposed regarding giving of complaint to the police and also
regarding spot mahazar. As submitted by the counsel for accused
persons, if the evidence of P.W.1 is taken into consideration, it is clear
that the deceased Sunitha died of committing suicide by hanging in the
11 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
house of P.W.1. Hence, the fact that the death of deceased did not
occur in the matrimonial house is not in dispute.
17. As per the evidence of P.W.1, after the marriage for about 4
months the accused persons looked after the deceased Sunitha happily
and thereafter they started to ill-treat the deceased Sunitha. Further,
the evidence of P.W.1 is that in the marriage negotiation one Splendor
Motor bike, Rs.50,000/- in cash, 15 saveren of gold were demanded as
dowry by the accused persons and accordingly about 15 days earlier to
marriage of deceased Sunitha and one month earlier to the marriage,
the Splendor Motor cycle was given to the accused. The gold
ornaments were given on the date of marriage.
18. Further, as per the evidence of P.W.1 in the cross-
examination, the reason for death of deceased Sunitha by committing
suicide reads thus:
"MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ »AzÉ 18£Éà vÁjÃT£ÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 7 UÀAmÉUÉ
£ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢zÀݼÀÄ. Defendant PÁ®PÉÌ DgÉÆæAiÀÄgÀÄ CªÀ¼À ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß
QvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀÄ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. CªÀ¼ÀÄ d£ÀªÀj wAUÀ½£À°è §A¢zÀݼÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄ
£À£ÀUÉ vÀAUÀ¼ÀÄ C£Àß ºÁPÀÄvÁÛgÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£ÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¹zÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ CAvÀ
ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. £À£ÀUÉ Hl ºÁPÀÄwÛ®è CAvÀ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀÅ£ÀB UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ
ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀÅ¢®è £À£ÀUÉ vÀÄA§Á »A¸É PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛgÉ CAvÀ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ."
Therefore, as submitted by the counsel for accused persons, if the
above referred evidence is taken into consideration, it is clear that at
the time of deceased allegedly committed suicide the P.W.1 went to
12 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
Doddaballapura Court to attend her case and she contacted the
deceased over phone and when the deceased did not receive the
phone call, she contacted the neighbour Gopal over phone and
accordingly, Gopal sent his wife to the house of P.W.1 to enquire and
the wife of Gopal went to the house of P.W.1 along with Jyothi, the
younger sister of P.W.1, and thereafter the said Jyothi contacted P.W.1
over phone and told her regarding the deceased Sunitha died of
committing suicide. If the said evidence of P.W.1 is considered, as
submitted by the counsel for accused persons, it would be clear that
the deceased Sunitha would have committed suicide in between 9.00
a.m. and 10.30 a.m.
19. The C.W.22 Somalingappa, the then Police Inspector of
complainant police station, is allegedly registered this case on the
complaint of C.W.1 at Ex.P.1. The C.W.14 has been examined as
P.W.22. As per the evidence of P.W.14, on 19.01.2011 the P.W.1
Manjula came to the police station and gave written complaint as per
Ex.P.1 and accordingly, he registered the case in Crime No.12/2011 as
per FIR at Ex.P.20. Thereafter on the same day at 12.00 noon he went
to the spot and drew mahazar at Ex.P.2 in the presence of panchas.
Thereafter he sent dead body of the deceased Sunitha to M.S.
Ramaiah hospital for post mortem, as the deceased died within 3 years
from the date of marriage.
13 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
20. It is also the evidence of P.W.14 that he issued requisition
to the Tahsildar to conduct inquest panchanama. On the same day
after post mortem of the dead body he handed over the dead body to
the P.W.1 and received receipt as acknowledgement. On the next day
i.e. on 20.01.2011 the P.W.14 recorded the statement of witnesses by
name B.T. Krishnappa, B.T. Purushothama, Gopalakrishna and Smt.
Laxmi. On the same day he received marriage invitation and 2 photos
from P.W.1. The said invitation and photos are marked at Exs.P.10 to
P.12. On the same day the accused No.1 was apprehended by the
Police Constable Venkatesh and produced before him as per the report
of Ex.P.21 and accordingly, he arrested accused No.1 and recorded his
voluntary statement and sent him to the learned Magistrate Court for
remanding him to judicial custody.
21. Further the evidence of P.W.14 is that on the following day
he recorded statement of the witnesses Smt. Shivamma, Chithra,
Shanthamma and Shobha. On 22.01.2011 he recorded the statements
of witnesses by name Jyothi and Jayarama. On 05.12.2011 P.W.14
sent his Police Constable Prasanna Kumar to M.S. Ramaiah hospital for
getting post mortem report and also the clothes, which were on the
dead body at the time of post mortem and accordingly, on the same
day he received post mortem report and 6 clothes in sealed packet.
14 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
The concerned Police constable gave report as per Ex.P.22. The
P.W.14 seized the said clothes. The post mortem report is at Ex.P.19.
On 07.04.2011 P.W.14 issued letter to the owner of
Gangadhareshwara Kalayana Mantapa, wherein the marriage of
deceased and the accused No.1 was held, for issuing necessary
certificate. On 19.04.2011 the P.W.14 received the concerned
certificate from the owner of the said Kalyana Mantapa as per Ex.P.23.
The further investigation was done by C.W.23 Chandrappa, the then
ACP, who has been examined as P.W.18.
22. As per the evidence of P.W.18, he took up further
investigation of the case from the then Police Inspector PW.14 on
10.04.2011 and directed the P.I. for apprehending the accused No.2
and 3. However, the accused No.2 and 3 were not found and hence,
as the investigation was already over, showing the accused No.2 and 3
as absconding accused persons, he filed charge sheet against the
accused persons on 20.04.2011. As submitted by the counsel for
accused persons, this evidence of PW.18 clearly goes to show that the
PW.18 had not done any investigation in the case on hand.
23. Moreover, as pointed out by the counsel for accused
persons, the PW.18 in his evidence in cross-examination has deposed
that:
15 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
"¢B19.01.2011 jAzÀ 27.01.2011 gÀªÀgÉUÉ J¯Áè ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉ zÁR¯ÁVvÀÄÛ
C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. ªÀÄgÀuÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¢B 05.02.2011 gÀAzÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ
C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. ¢B 20.04.2011 gÀAzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. F CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ ªÀÄzÀåzÀ°è ¦üAiÀiÁ𢠪ÀÄvÀÄÛ
CÉgÀÆæAiÀĪÀgÀÄ gÁf ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä 2 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀ¢ü ©nÖzÉÝ£ÀÄ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ
¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
It is also the evidence of PW.18 in his cross-examination that:
"¸ÀĤvÁ £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQPÉÆArzÀÝ£ÀÄß ®Qëä ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £ÉÆÃrzÀÄÝ, ®QëäUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä
ªÀÄAdļÀ ºÉýzÀÄÝ, ®Qëä eÉÆÃåwÉUÉ w½¹zÀ¼ÀÄ, eÉÆÃåw ªÀÄAdļÁ½UÉ w½¹zÀ¼ÀÄ
C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. D ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À ºÀwÛgÀ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ¥sÉÆãï
EzÀÝ §UÉÎ vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀĤÃvÁ £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQPÉÆAqÁUÀ ªÀÄAdļÀ
zÉÆqÀا¼Áî¥ÀÅgÀPÉÌ PÉù£À ¸À®ÄªÁV PÉÆÃnðUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ CAvÀ vÀ£Àß ¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ°è
ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛ¼É C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. ªÀÄAdļÀ PÉù£À ¸À®ÄªÁV zÉÆqÀا¼Áî¥ÀÅgÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃzÀ §UÉÎ
vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ªÀÄÈvÀ¼À vÀªÀÄä ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ¼ÀÄ £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQPÉÆAqÀ
PÁ®PÉÌ CªÀ¼ÀÄ PÁ¯ÉÃfUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ£ÉÆà CxÀªÁ ¥sÉïï DVzÀÝ£ÉÆà J£ÀÄߪÀ §UÉÎ vÀ¤SÉ
ªÀiÁqÀ°®è"
Further, the PW.18 had admitted that in the photos at Exs.P.8 and P.9
the ornaments were appearing on the dead body of the deceased
Sunitha, but in the inquest panchanama it is mentioned that there
were no ornaments found on the dead body of deceased. The P.W.18
has further deposed that the prosecution papers on record did not
show what happened to those ornaments, which were found on the
dead body of the deceased Sunitha in the photos at Exs.P.8 and P.9.
24. Moreover, the relevant portion in the evidence of P.W.18
reads thus:
"±ÀªÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £ÉÆÃrzÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÀªÀzÀ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÁ®zÀªÀgÉUÉ
¦üAiÀiÁ𢠪ÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦üAiÀiÁðAiÀÄ ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀÄ EzÀÝgÀÄ CAvÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ PÀAqÀÄ
§gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ±ÀªÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É EgÀĪÀ ¨É¯É§Á¼ÀĪÀ ªÀqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¦üAiÀiÁð¢zÁgÀgÁUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ
¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀgÁUÀ°Ã vÉUÉPÉÆArgÀĪÀ ¸ÁzÀsåvÉ EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ."
16 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
This evidence of P.W.18 would clearly show that either P.W.1 or
inmates of her husband would have taken the ornaments found on the
dead body of deceased earlier to police coming to the spot. This
evidence on record clearly goes to show that the P.W.1 is more
interested in the ornaments of her daughter, the deceased Sunitha
than the incident regarding death of the deceased.
25. The CW.20 Ranganath, the then Addl. Special Tahsildar of
Bengaluru North Taluk, is alleged to have conducted inquest
panchanama as per Ex.P.14. He has been examined as P.W.7. The
notice issued to the panchas by the PW.17 is marked at Ex.P.13. As
per the evidence of PW.17, Jayaprakash, Anandbabu and Sridhar are
the attestors to the inquest panchanama. Moreover, in the evidence in
cross-examination the P.W.17 has deposed that:
"£Á£ÀÄ ±ÀªÀ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÁ®PÉÌ ±ÀªÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¨É¯É¨Á¼ÀĪÀ
ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀ°®è."
It is also the evidence of P.W.17 in his cross-examination that:
"£Á£ÀÄ D¸àvÉæAiÀÄ°è ±ÀªÀ £ÉÆÃrzÀÝjAzÀ CzÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £ÉÃtô£À ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è ºÉÃUÉ EvÀÄÛ
CAvÀ ºÉüÀ°PÉÌ §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £À£ÀߣÀÄß £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQPÉÆAqÀ ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ
ºÉÆÃV vÉÆÃj¹zÀÝgÉ, D ªÀåQÛ C¯Éè £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQPÉÆArzÁݼÉÆà CxÀªÁ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀqɬÄAzÀ
vÀAzÀÄ £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQzÁÝgÉÆà CAvÀ UÉÆvÁÛUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ."
Further, it is admitted by the PW.17 in his evidence in cross-
examination that the persons of whose statements he recorded, are
the nearest relatives of the deceased Sunitha. Therefore, the evidence
17 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
of P.W.17 and the inquest panchanama at Ex.P.14 are in no way
helpful to the case of prosecution to make out any case against the
accused persons that the deceased Sunitha committed suicide due to
any ill-treatment and harassment by the accused persons.
26. On the other hand, as it is undisputed fact that the
deceased Sunitha died in the house of P.W.1 and the circumstances
that earlier to drawing inquest panchanama the ornaments found on
dead body of the deceased were removed, indicates that there was
chance of P.W.1 or her relatives removing the said ornaments. Hence,
the evidence forthcoming on record creates doubt in the mind of the
Court regarding the fact that accused persons demanded any dowry
either in the form of cash or any properties and they received any such
dowry for and in connection with the marriage of deceased Sunitha
with the accused No.1.
27. Moreover, as submitted by the counsel for accused persons
and also as referred herein above while discussing regarding the
evidence of P.W.18, it is clear that the call details regarding phone
calls between the P.W.1 Manjula and the alleged neighbour
Gopalakrishna and Jyothi, the younger sister of P.W.1, is the best
evidence to prove that the P.W.1 came to know of the deceased died
after P.W.1 left to Doddaballapur on the alleged date of incident and
18 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
that the P.W.1 came to know of the death of deceased Sunitha only
through phone call from her younger sister Jyothi.
28. As pointed out by the counsel for accused persons, the
PW.14, the then Police Inspector, who took up investigation, has
deposed in his evidence in cross-examination that:
"¸ÀĤvÁ ªÀÄgÀt¥ÀlÖ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÉÆgÀUÉ §AzÀzÀÄÝ ¥sÉÆãï PÀgÉUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ªÀÄAdļÀ
®QëäUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, ®Qëä eÉÆåÃwUÉ ¨Á¬Ä ªÀiÁw¤AzÀ ºÉýzÀÄÝ, eÉÆåÃw
ªÀÄAdļÁ½UÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ w½¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. ªÉÄïÉ
ºÉýzÀªÀgÀ ºÀwÛgÀ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ¥sÉÆãï EvÉÆÛà E®èªÉÅÆà JA§ §UÉÎ «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ°®è.
¢B 19.01.2011 gÀAzÀÄ F ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ lªÀgï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¥sÉÆãï£ÀÄß
¹éÃPÀj¹zÀÄÝ CAvÀ w½zÀÄPÉƼÀÀÄzÁVvÀÄÛ. D §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß D
jÃw ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
It is also deposed by P.W.14 in his evidence in cross-examination that
he did not make any investigation to ascertain the fact as to whether
P.W.1 went to Doddaballapur on the date of alleged incident and that
Chandrashekar, the son of P.W.1 went to the college at the time of
alleged incident and thereafter he came to know of the death of
deceased Sunitha when he was in the college.
29. The relevant portion in the evidence of P.W.14 reads thus:
"ÀD ¢£À ªÀÄAdļÀ zÉÆqÀا¼Áî¥ÀÅgÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝgÉÆà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C°è AiÀiÁªÀ PÉøÀÄ EvÀÄÛ
CAvÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è........ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgÀ D ªÀµÀð
PÁ¯ÉÃeï NzÀÄwÛzÀÝ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ w½zÀÄPÉÆArgÀ°®è."
The above referred evidence forthcoming on record creates doubt
regarding the fact that the deceased died of committing suicide in the
morning on the alleged date of incident. At this stage, it is very
19 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
pertinent to refer to the post mortem report of the deceased, which is
produced by the prosecution as per Ex.P.19. The C.W.21 Dr. Praveen,
the then Assistant Professor of Forensic Department in M.S. Ramaiaih
hospital, who alleged to have conducted post mortem of dead body of
the deceased Sunitha. The C.W.21 has been examined as P.W.13.
30. The P.W.13 has deposed that he conducted post mortem of
the dead body of deceased, collected clothes found on the dead body
and sent them to the I.O. Those clothes are nighty, sweater, banyan
and bra, petty coat, underwear and saree allegedly used for hanging
and same are produced and marked at M.O.1 to M.O.6 respectively. As
submitted by the counsel for accused persons, in the evidence in
cross-examination the P.W.13 has deposed that:
"ÀªÀÄÈvÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄĪÀ 6 vÁ¸ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä DºÁgÀ ¸Éë¹gÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ"
Further, as per the post mortem report at Ex.P.19,, the stomach
contained about 50 ml. of cream colour fluid and intestinal coils
contained gas and its contents. The above said medical evidence
forthcoming on record in the form of oral evidence of P.W.13 and the
post mortem report at Ex.P.19 would show that the deceased would
not have taken food about 6 hours earlier to her death. However, the
P.W.1 in her evidence in cross-examination has deposed as hereunder:
"£Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀĤÃvÁ wÃjPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¢£À CªÀ½UÉ wArAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀzÉà ºÁUÉà ºÉÆÃzÉ£ÀÄ.
CªÀ¼ÀÄ K£ÀÄ wAr wA¢zÀݼÀÄ CAvÀ £À£ÀUÉ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
20 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
This evidence forthcoming on record creates doubt regarding the time
of death of the deceased Sunitha.
31. The P.W.1 Manjula in her evidence in chief-examination has
deposed regarding the alleged ill-treatment by the accused persons to
the deceased Sunitha and also regarding demand of dowry by and
giving of dowry to the accused persons. The P.W.1 has also deposed
regarding spot mahazar at Ex.P.2. Further, the P.W.1 has deposed that
after two days of giving complaint to the police, the police called her to
the A.C.P. Office and thereafter she was taken to the house of accused
No.1 and at that time in the house of accused No.1 the police seized
cupboard, pressure cooker, 5 silk sarees and other 21 sarees, leather
bag and Motor cycle by drawing mahazar as per Ex.P.3. At that time,
his son, Shobha and Shankar were present. The document at Ex.P.4 is
the photo of cupboard. The document at Ex.P.5 is the photo of clothes
found in the cupboard and the photos at Exs.P.7 and P.8 are the
photos of gold ornaments and Motor cycle. Those photos are identified
by the P.W.11. Moreover, the two photos regarding marriage of the
deceased are produced and got marked in the evidence of P.W.1 as
per Exs.P.11 and P.12.
21 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
32. However, regarding the demand and giving of dowry, as
pointed out by the counsel for accused persons, the relevant portion in
the evidence of P.W.1 reads thus:
"1£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ PÉÆlÖ GAUÀÄgÀzÀ ¸ÉÊeï £À£ÀUÉ ºÉüÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. JµÀÄÖ
vÀÆPÀzÀ GAUÀÄgÀ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÀ £À£ÀUÉ £É£À¦gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. GAUÀÄgÀ ªÀiÁr¹zÀPÉÌ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÁªÀwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.........¨Éæ¸ï¯Émï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÉÊ£À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ EgÀĪÀ ¸ÉÃlÄ ºÀwÛgÀ ªÀiÁr¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ, CªÀÅUÀ¼À vÀÆPÀ £À£ÀUÉ
UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. GAUÀÄgÀ, ¨Éæ¯ï¯Émï, ZÉÊ£ï EªÀÅUÀ½UÉ JµÀÄÖ ºÀt PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÀÛÃ£É CAvÀ
£À£ÀUÉ ºÉüÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¨Éæøï¯Émï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÉÊ£À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ §UÉÎ £À£Àß
ºÀwÛgÀ ¥ÁªÀw EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.."
Moreover, it is very pertinent to refer to the portion in the evidence in
cross-examination of P.W.1, which reads thus:
"DgÉÆæAiÀÄgÀÄ ¨Éæ¸ï¯Émï£ÀÄß PÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è, £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÉýzÀݼÀÄ, CzÀPÉÌ £ÁªÀÅ
CzÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛêÉ."
It is also the evidence of P.W.1 in her cross-examination that:
"¸ÀĤÃvÁ¼À ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ PÁ®PÉÌ vÁ½ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁAUÀ®å¸ÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ£À PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ
ªÀiÁr¹ vÀA¢zÀÝgÀÄ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. CªÀÅUÀ¼À ¨É¯É 49 ¸Á«gÀzÀ 395 gÀÆ. DVvÀÄÛ
C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
As submitted by the counsel for accused persons, the above referred
evidence of P.W.1 falsifies the fact that the accused persons
demanded any dowry and thereby the P.W.1 gave Motor cycle, any
amount and gold ornaments to the accused persons as dowry.
33. As discussed herein above, it is clear that in the photos at
Exs.P.8 and P.9 the gold ornaments were found on the dead body of
the deceased Sunitha, but at the time of inquest panchanama there
22 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
were no gold ornaments on the dead body of the deceased. As pointed
out by the counsel for accused persons, the P.W.1 in her evidence has
deposed that:
"¸ÀĤÃvÁ ¸ÁAiÀÄĪÀ PÁ®PÉÌ CªÀ¼À PÉÆgÀ¼À°è ªÀiÁAUÀ®å ¸ÀgÀ, PÁ®ÄAUÀÄgÀ, Q«AiÀÄ N¯É,
ªÀÄÆV£ÀvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §¼ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀݪÀÅ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. ¸ÀĤÃvÁ¼À ªÉÄʪÉÄÃ¯É EzÀÝ
ªÀiÁAUÀ®å ¸ÀgÀ, Q«AiÀÄ N¯É, ªÀÄÆV£ÀvÀÛ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ºÉtzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ©nÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
But, as discussed herein above, there were no such ornaments found
on the dead body of the deceased at the time of inquest panchanama.
The P.W.14, the then Police Inspector, who did investigation, has
deposed in his evidence in cross-examination that:
"±ÀªÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É EgÀĪÀ ªÀÄAUÀ¼À¸ÀÆvÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ Q«AiÀÄ N¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ K£ÀÄ DzÀªÀÅ CAvÀ £À£Àß
vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ¥Àr¹®è, ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄAUÀ¼À¸ÀÆvÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ N¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÈvÀ¼À vÁ¬Ä
vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀzÀÄÝ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
Hence, the cumulative effect of evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.14 clearly
goes to show that the P.W.1 should have removed such ornaments
found on the dead body of deceased earlier to the dead body was
taken to the hospital for inquest panchanama. Hence, doubt arises
regarding the evidence of P.W.1 itself.
34. Further, the main contention of P.W.1 in the case on hand is
that the P.W.1 gave Rs.50,000/- as dowry to the accused. The relevant
portion in the cross-examination of P.W.1 reads thus:
"50 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£Àß vÀAV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀAVAiÀÄ UÀAqÀ ºÉÆÃV DgÉÆæAiÀÄjUÉ
PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ºÀt vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÄÁAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ PÁ®PÉÌ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ EzÀÝ£ÀÄ.
23 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀ MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. 50 ¸Á«gÀ
gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£Àß d«Æ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁj PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
But there is absolutely no documentary evidence forthcoming from the
prosecution to show that P.W.1 sold any property and out of such sale
consideration, she paid Rs.50,000/- to the accused persons as dowry.
On the other hand, the prosecution has examined one Chitra as
P.W.19. She is C.W.29 as per the charge sheet. The P.W.19 in her
evidence in chief-examination has deposed that:
"¦üAiÀiÁð¢ vÀ£Àß C½AiÀĤUÉ ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï PÉÆr¸À®Ä £À¤ßAzÀ ªÀÄzÀĪÉVAzÀ
MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À ªÉÆzÀ®Ä 50 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀݼÀÄ."
P.W.19 has also deposed that:
"ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ PÁ®PÉÌ ¸ÀĤÃvÁ¼À UÀAqÀ£À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. CªÀ£ÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ
ªÀÄÄA¢gÀĪÀ 1£Éà DgÉÆæ EgÀÄvÁÛ£É. ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀ PÁ®PÉÌ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ £À£ÀUÉ 30 ¸Á«gÀ
gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÀݼÀÄ."
This evidence of P.W.19 is quite contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 that
the P.W.1 gave Rs.50,000/- to the accused persons from out of the
sale proceeds of any sale of her property.
35. Moreover, it is undisputed fact that the marriage of the
deceased Sunitha with the accused No.1 was held on 06.12.2007 and
the deceased died on 19.01.2011 i.e. after more than 3½ years from
the date of marriage. If at all the P.W.19 gave any loan of Rs.50,000/-
to the P.W.1 one month earlier to the marriage of the deceased, the
question of she did not ask for repayment for the period of more than
24 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
3 years should not have arisen. Moreover, as submitted by the learned
counsel for the accused persons, there is absolutely no piece of paper
forthcoming from the prosecution in proof of evidence of P.W.19 that
she gave any loan of Rs.50,000/- to the P.W.1 at any point of time.
36. Further, the evidence of P.W.19 that the P.W.1 repaid
amount of Rs.30,000/- out of the said loan after more than 4 years
prima-facie appears to be not believable. Hence, doubt arises
regarding the fact that the accused persons demanded any dowry in
the form of cash and ornaments and the P.W.1 gave any such cash
and ornaments to the accused persons as dowry.
37. The P.W.21 N. Hanumanthappa, the then ACP is also the
investigating officer. With the permission of the Court P.W.21 took up
further investigation of the case after accused No.2 and 3 were got
released on bail. As per the evidence of P.W.21, on 22.01.2002 the
accused No.2 appeared before him and informed that she had given
one bracelet and chain to her neighbour Challaiah and he recorded the
voluntary statement of accused No.2 accordingly. It is also the
evidence of P.W.1 that in the presence of P.W.1 Manjula, he went
along with accused No.2 to the house of Challaiah and thereafter on
01.02.2012 he seized one chain and bracelet from the C.W.26
Challaiah in the presence of CW.27 and C.W.28 as per mahazar at
25 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
Ex.P.25. The P.W.21 has further deposed that he went to the house of
accused No.2 and seized Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-
03-HA-5298, which was parked in front of her house. The P.W.1 also
seized steel almirah 8 pairs of chudidhars, 5 silk sarees, 21 plain
sarees, 2 sweaters, 2 nighties, 5 petty coats, one leather vanity bag
and one pressure cooker as per mahazar at Ex.P.3. The said Motor
cycle, clothes and other articles are alleged to be the things given as
dowry to the accused persons.
38. It is not in dispute that the said Motor cycle and the above
said clothes and gold ornaments were given to the possession of
P.W.1. As per the case of prosecution, the said Motor cycle was
purchased by the accused No.1 out of the amount of Rs.50,000/-
allegedly given to him by the P.W.1 as dowry earlier to the marriage of
deceased Sunitha. But as discussed herein above, there is absolutely
no material forthcoming from the prosecution to prove that any
amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the accused No.1 by P.W.1. There
are discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 and also in the evidence of
P.W.19 Chithra from whom the P.W.1 is alleged to have taken loan of
Rs.50,000/-.
39. The C.W.26 Challaiah is examined as P.W.20. As per his
evidence, gold chain and bracelet was seized from him by the police as
26 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
per mahazar at Ex.P.24. The said ornaments are found in the photo at
Ex.P.7. However, as pointed out by the counsel for accused persons, in
the evidence in cross-examination P.W.20 has deposed that the
deceased Sunitha and the accused No.1 came together to his house
for the purpose of sale of said ornaments stating that they required
money for the purpose of treatment of their child, who is suffering
from heart disease.
40. The relevant portion in the evidence of P.W.20 in his cross-
examination reads thus:
"1£Éà DgÉÆæ ºÁUÀÆ DvÀ£À ¥Àwß ªÀÄÈvÉ ¸ÀĤÃvÁ EªÀj§âgÀÆ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀqÀªÉ ªÀiÁgÁl
ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä D ¢£À §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀÄ«£À ºÀÈzÀAiÀÄ aQvÉì ¸ÀA§AzÀ ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ
ªÉZÀÑ ¨Àsj¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV vÁªÀÅ ªÀqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁV D ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è
w½¹zÀgÀÄ."
This evidence of P.W.20 clearly goes to show that even if it is accepted
that the said gold ornaments appearing in Ex.P.7 were sold to P.W.20,
such sale was done by the accused No.1 along with his wife, the
deceased Sunitha, for the purpose of medial treatment expenses of
their child. Therefore, the case of prosecution that the accused No.1
sold the said ornaments which were allegedly given to him as dowry
appears to be most improbable. Moreover, as pointed out by the
counsel for accused persons, even though P.W.1 is mother of the
deceased Sunitha, she does not know the name of the child of the
27 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
deceased Sunitha. The relevant portion in the evidence of P.W.1 reads
thus:
"¸ÀĤÃvÁ¼À ªÀÄUÀÄ«£À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ K£ÀÄ EvÀÄÛ CAvÀ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀ PÁ®PÉÌ £À£ÀUÉ
UÉÆwÛgÀ°®è C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÀĤÃvÁ½UÉ UÀAqÀ ªÀÄUÀĪÁVzÀÄÝ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj.
DzÀgÉ CªÀ£À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ fêÀ£ïUËqÀ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è, DzÀgÉ fÉêÀ£ï CAvÀ
EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
However, as pointed out by the counsel for accused persons, the
above referred evidence of P.W.1 appears to be false, in view of her
alleged statement given before the Tahsildar at the time of inquest.
The said statement is got marked by the accused persons in the cross-
examination of P.W.1 at Ex.D.3, wherein the relevant portion reads
thus:
"¢B 18.01.2011 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 7.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ M§â¼Éà vÀ£Àß
MAzÀƪÀgÉ ªÀµÀðzÀ fëvÁ JA§ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ C¼ÀÄvÁÛ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ
§AzÀ¼ÀÄ."
If the above referred statement of P.W.1 as per Ex.D.3 is taken in to
consideration, it is clear that she is not familiar with the child of her
daughter, the deceased Sunitha.
41. Moreover, it is very pertinent to note that the Motor cycle
seized in the case from the house of accused persons was given to the
possession of P.W.1 as per order of the Court. But during the
pendency of this case itself, she sold the said Motor cycle in favour of
third party. The evidence of P.W.10, who is son of P.W.1, regarding
such sale of Motor cycle reads as hereunder:
28 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
"1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¨ÉÊPÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ PÉÆlÖ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀvÀå¥ÀàgÀªÀjUÉ
ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ¸ÀvÀå¥Àà gÁdUÉÆÃ¥Á®£À ¸ÉßûvÀ¤gÀÄvÁÛ£É C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj.."
It is one of the defences put forth by the accused persons is that the
P.W.10 having easy relationship (athi salugeya sambandha) with the said
Rajagopal and hence, the deceased Sunitha was not in good terms
with her mother-P.W.1. The P.W.10 has admitted in his evidence in
cross-examination that his mother along with him used to go out with
the said Rajagopal. Further, the P.W.1 in her evidence has admitted
that her husband died 9 days earlier to the marriage of the deceased
Sunitha and the said Rajagopal helped her in the said marriage. Even
though the P.W.1 has denied that she is having any relationship with
the said Rajagopal, if the total effect of the evidence of P.W.1 and
P.W.10 are taken into consideration, it is clear that the P.W.1 had been
in some kind of relationship with the said Rajagopal.
42. Further, it is very pertinent to note that the P.W.1 sold the
concerned Motor cycle to one Sathyappa, the friend of said Rajagopal,
in spite of the fact that this case is pending for consideration. Hence,
these materials on record go to show that the P.W.1 is interested in
the money and properties of her daughter, the deceased Sunitha and
she got those ornaments and Motor cycle and also other articles
immediately after the death of deceased Sunitha.
29 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
43. One of the defences put forth by the accused persons is
that the husband of P.W.1, who is father of the deceased Sunitha, died
9 days earlier to the marriage of the deceased Sunitha and in respect
of the same, the Sunitha had mental disorder. In the evidence in
cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.10, the counsel for the accused
persons has tried to put forth the case the evil spirit of father of the
deceased Sunitha was coming on the body of the deceased Sunitha
and hence, she was suffering from mental disorder. It is true that the
P.W.1 and P.W.10 have denied the said fact.
44. However, the P.W.10 Chandrashekar, the younger brother
of the deceased has admitted in his cross-examination that the
deceased Sunitha was sensitive and she suffered mentally due to the
death of her father. The relevant portion in the evidence in cross-
examination of P.W.10 reads thus:
"£À£Àß vÀAzÉ wÃjPÉÆArzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀĤÃvÁ½UÉ §ºÀ¼À DWÁvÀªÁVvÀÄÛ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj."
Moreover, the P.W.12 Shanthamma, the independent witness, who
turned hostile to the case of prosecution, has deposed in the evidence
in cross-examination by the counsel for accused persons that the
Sunitha was having mental disorder. The relevant portion in the
evidence of P.W.12 reads thus:
"CªÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV F vÀgÀºÀ DVvÀÄÛ. ¸ÀĤÃvÁ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ZÉ£ÁßV EzÀݼÀÄ.
¸ÀĤÃvÁ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ £ÀqÀvÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV®è, ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß
30 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
ElÄÖPÉÆArzÁÝ¼É CAvÀ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ, J¯Áè ªÀqÀªÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀÄqÀØ£ÀÄß CªÀ¤UÉ PÉÆnÖzÁݼÉ
CAvÀ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ, D ¨ÉÃeÁjAzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è CAvÀ
ºÉüÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ."
If this evidence of P.W.12 is taken into consideration, the defence put
forth by the accused persons appears to be more probable that due to
the conduct of P.W.1, the deceased should have committed suicide in
the house of her mother itself.
45. The P.W.9 Jayamma is grandmother of the deceased i.e.
mother of P.W.1. The P.W.9 has deposed regarding the case alleged
by the prosecution. However, in the cross-examination, she has denied
that she along with her daughter-P.W.1 went to the jail to see accused
No.1. But P.W.1 in her evidence has deposed that on 28.02.2001 she
along with her son went to the jail to see the accused No.1 and
thereafter, on 05.03.2011 she along with her son and mother went to
the jail to see the accused No.1. The P.W.10 Chandrashekar, the son
of P.W.1, has also admitted in his cross-examination that he along with
his grandmother-P.W.9 and the mother-P.W.1 went to the jail to see
accused No.1 twice. This evidence of P.W.9 clearly goes to show that
she has tried to give false evidence. The P.W.8 Jyothi is younger sister
of P.W.1. But, as argued by the counsel for the accused, the evidence
of P.W.8 is not in accordance with the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.10
regarding prosecution case. The independent witnesses P.W.4
31 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
Krishnappa, P.W.5 Purushotham and P.W.6 Lakshmi have turned
hostile to the case of prosecution.
46. Further, it is very interesting to note that on the next date
of alleged incident, the accused No.1 was arrested by the police. But
after filing of the charge sheet, that too after the apprehension of
accused No.2 and 3, who were released on bail, the P.W.21 took up
further investigation of the case with the permission of Court. He
allegedly seized the ornaments found in the photo at Ex.P.7 and the
concerned Motor cycle from the possession of the accused No.2 after
about one year of the alleged incident. Therefore, doubt arises
regarding the fact that the accused persons subjected the deceased to
any type of mental and physical cruelty and demanding dowry. There
is also no evidence to prove that the accused persons took any dowry
from P.W.1 in the marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased
Sunitha. Moreover, as the deceased Sunitha died of committing suicide
in the house of P.W.1 and at that time the accused persons were not
present in the said house clearly shows that there is absolutely no case
against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section
304-B r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.
47. As pointed out by the counsel for accused persons, the
medical evidence on record also creates doubt regarding death of the
32 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
deceased Sunitha committing suicide. As submitted by the counsel for
accused persons, in the photos at Exs.P.8 and P.9 there appear two
knots in the saree, wherein the deceased was in the position of
hanging. The P.W.14 Somalingappa Chabbi, the then Police Inspector,
who conducted investigation has deposed in his evidence that:
"¤¦-8 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 9gÀ°è PÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É MAzÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É MAzÀÄ UÀAlÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛªÉ
C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÀzÀj ¥sÀÇÃmÉÆÃzÀ°è ¹ÃgÉAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ vÀÄ¢ ªÉÄÃ¯ï ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ
PÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ vÀÄ¢ PɼÀUÉ £ÉÃvÁqÀÄwÛzÉ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. ¹ÃgÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄzÀså
¨sÁUÀzÀ°è UÀAlÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj."
It is also deposed by the P.W.14 in his cross-examination that:
"±ÀªÀzÀ PÁ®Ä ¤¦-9 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ªÀÄAZÀPÉÌ ºÀwÛgÀÄvÀÛzÉ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj."
P.W.13 Dr. Praveen, who conducted post mortem of the dead body of
the deceased has deposed in his evidence that:
"¤¦-9gÀ°è £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQPÉÆAqÀ ¹ÃgÉAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ ¨sÁUÀ MAzÀÄ PÀqÉ £ÉÃvÁqÀÄvÀÛzÉ,
ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ vÀÄ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀqÉ PÀnÖzÀAvÉ PÁtÄvÀÛzÉ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. ¤¦-8 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
9gÀ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ¼À PÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É MAzÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É MAzÀgÀAvÉ 2 UÀAlÄUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅzÁV
PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. ¤¦-8 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 9 gÀ°èAiÀÄ UÀAlÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¦üPïì £Ámï ªÀåQÛ
vÁ£ÁVAiÉÄà £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQPÉÆAqÁUÀ PÀtÄÚUÀ¼ÀÄ CgÉ ªÀÄÄaÑgÀÄvÀÛªÉ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj.."
As argued by the counsel for accused persons, if the documents at
Exs.P.8 and P.9 coupled with the evidence of P.W.13 Dr. Praveen and
the P.W.14-Investigating Officer are considered together, it creates
doubt in the mind of the Court of the alleged incident that the
deceased Sunitha died of committing suicide as alleged by the
prosecution.
33 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
48. Moreover, the counsel for accused persons has drawn the
attention of this Court to the text of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence
and Toxicology, Twenty-Third Edition edited by Dr. K. Mathiharan and
Prof. Dr. Amrit K Patnaik, in which regarding the post mortem
examination it is stated that:
"The objective of the post-mortem examination is to establish the
identity of a body, when not known, to ascertain the time since
death, and the cause of death; and whether the death was natural
order unnatural and if unnatural, whether it was homicidal, suicidal
order accidental. In case of newly born infants, the question of live
birth and viability assume importance and should be determined."
In the said book there is also literature regarding conditions of the
dead body on external examination.
49. Regarding the time since death of the deceased, it is
mentioned in the said book that:
"Time of onset: This varies greatly in different cases, but the
average period of its onset may be regarded as three to six hours
after death in temperature climates, and it may take two to three
hours to develop. In India, it usually commences in one to two
hours after death."
Moreover, in the case of death from asphyxia as per Chapter 18 of the
said book, the definition of hanging is that:
"Hanging is a form of death, produced by suspending the body
with a ligature round the neck, the constricting force being the
weight of the body (order a part of the body weight)."
Further, regarding ligature mark it is stated in the said text that:
"The noose of the ligature is tied either as a granny order reef
knot order as a simple slipknot, which makes a running noose. If
there are two knots, usually one is not as tight as the second,
except in homicidal cases."
34 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
It is also mentioned in the said text that:
"In judicial hanging, a sudden drop of about 2 m is required
according to the weight of the condemned person to produce
fracture-dislocation of the upper cervical vertebrae."
Moreover, regarding the external appearance of the dead body at the
time of post mortem, as per the said Medical jurisprudence, is that:
"External appearances are due to the ligature on the neck and
those, peculiar to the mode of death. In both hanging and
strangulation, the ligature should be photographed in situ, and
then removed by cutting, without untying the knot (order in case
of running noose, bandaging order stitching it at the point of its
exit)
If the above referred contents of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, it is
clear that other signs found on the dead body of the deceased Sunitha
as mentioned in the post mortem report at Ex.P.19 create doubt
regarding the prosecution case that the deceased died of committing
suicide by hanging.
50. Moreover, with regard to the nature of fabric in respect of
the saree at M.O.6, which is allegedly used by the deceased Sunitha
for hanging, the counsel for accused persons has referred to book
Examination of the Load-Elongation Properties of Fabrics Yarns and
Fibres at 20 and 40 C(U) Defence Research Establishment Ottawa
(Ontario) by Rita M. Crow and Malcolm M. Dewar, published by
Defence Research Establishment Ottawa, (Report 923), doubt arises in
the case on hand regarding the fact that the deceased committed
35 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
suicide by hanging allegedly using the saree at Ex.P.6 for hanging
herself.
51. As discussed herein above, except the interest testimony of
P.W.1, P.W.9 and P.W.10, who are mother, maternal grand mother
and younger brother of the deceased Sunitha, there is absolutely no
independent evidence forthcoming from the prosecution to prove that
the accused persons took any dowry at the time of marriage of
accused No.1 with the deceased Sunitha and that after the marriage
the accused persons subjected the deceased Sunitha to any kind of
mental and physical cruelty demanding further dowry and also that
such act of accused persons led the deceased to commit suicide.
52. Moreover, it is very pertinent to note that the deceased died
of allegedly committing suicide in the house of her mother P.W.1.
Therefore, if the oral and documentary evidence and also the
concerned medical evidence forthcoming on record are considered
together, doubt arises regarding the case alleged against the accused
persons for the offence charged. The accused persons have examined
one Cheluvegowda as D.W.1 in support of their defence put forth in
the case. The evidence of D.W.1 in chief-examination clearly supports
the contention of the accused persons in the case on hand. There is
absolutely no material forthcoming from the prosecution in the cross-
36 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
examination of D.W.1 to make his evidence disbelievable. Therefore,
on the facts of the case and also in law it is clear that the doubt arises
regarding the alleged incident that the deceased died of committing
suicide by hanging due to any ill-treatment and harassment by the
accused persons.
53. As submitted by the counsel for accused persons, it is also
pertinent to note that there is absolutely no documentary evidence
forthcoming from the prosecution to show that any house property is
standing in the name P.W.1 Manjula and the accused persons
demanded the deceased Sunitha to get any such house property
changed in their name as dowry subsequent to the marriage of
deceased Sunitha with accused No.1.
54. Further, as discussed herein above, there is no independent
corroborative evidence forthcoming from the prosecution to prove the
demand and taking of dowry by the accused persons from P.W.1 at
any point of time. The counsel for accused persons has relied on the
decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat reported in LAWS (GJH)
2013 9 72 (Kanubhai Virjibhai Vs State of Gujarat). The counsel for the
accused has also drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4488
37 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
(Dayal Singh and Ors Vs State of Uttaranchal), in which referring to Sec.3
of Evidence Act it is held that:
"If the eye witness is having relationship with the deceased, there is
no ground to disbelieve him unless his testimony carries element of
unfairness and undue intention of false implications."
The counsel for accused persons has also relied on the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2013 AIR SCW 1746 in
which in the case for the offence punishable under Section 304-B and
498-A of Indian Penal Code it is held that:
"The demand of dowry should be in connection with the marriage'
demand for purchase of a computer for starting business cannot be
said to be demand in connection with the marriage."
It is also said in the above decision that in case of dowry death,
parents of the deceased making general allegations of harassment of
deceased by the accused husband and there is no specific act of
cruelty alleged. Hence, it is held that defence evidence casts
reasonable doubt on prosecution case and the conviction of accused
husband is liable to be set aside.
55. The principles of law laid down in the above referred
decision are aptly applicable to the case on hand. In the present case
there is no specific allegation made against any of the accused persons
that the accused persons subjected the deceased Sunitha to any kind
of harassment and ill-treatment. Further, if the cumulative effect of the
evidence forthcoming on record is considered, doubt arises regarding
38 S.C.No.664/2011
C/w S.C.No.644/2012
the case alleged against the accused persons. It is well settled
principle of law that the accused persons are entitled to benefit of such
doubt.
56. If the cumulative effect of the prosecution evidence
available on record is considered, it creates doubt in the mind of the
Court regarding the case alleged against the accused persons that they
subjected the deceased Sunitha to any ill-treatment or harassment and
that any such ill-treatment and harassment led the deceased Sunitha
to commit suicide by hanging. It is well settled principle of law that the
accused persons are entitled to benefit of such doubt. Therefore, the
prosecution has utterly failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt any
case for any of the offences charged against them in the case on
hand. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the points No.1 to 4
and consequently, the points No.1 to 4 are answered in the negative.
57. Point No.5: From the discussion made herein above, it is
clear that the accused persons deserve to be acquitted of the offence
charged against them in this case. In the result, therefore, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 r/w 39 S.C.No.664/2011 C/w S.C.No.644/2012 Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The bail bond executed by the accused No.1 to 3and the surety bond shall stand cancelled.
The properties at M.O.1 to M.O.6 are ordered to be destroyed as worthless after the expiry of appeal time.
The judgment should be prepared in duplicate. The original copy shall be kept in the file in S.C.No.664/2011 and the copy thereof shall be kept in the file in S.C.No.644/2012.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 28th day of October, 2017) (T.N. INAVALLY) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46) ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:
PW-1: Manjula PW-2: Navaneetha Krishna PW-3: Anand Babu PW-4: Krishnappa PW-5: Purushotham PW-6: Lakshmi PW-7: Shobha PW-8: Jyothi PW-9: Jayamma
PW-10: Chandrashekar PW-11: Shivamma PW-12: Shanthamma PW-13: Dr. Praveen PW-14: Somalingappa Chabbi PW-15: Prasanna Kumar PW-16: Shankar PW-17: Ranganath 40 S.C.No.664/2011 C/w S.C.No.644/2012 PW-18: Chandrappa PW-19: Chitra PW-20: Challaiah PW-21: N. Hanumanthappa List of Documents exhibited on behalf of the Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Panchanama Ex.P.3: Seizure panchanama Ex.P.4 to 9: Photos Ex.P.10: Wedding card Ex.P.10: Notice Ex.P.11: Wedding photo Ex.P.12: Wedding photo Ex.P.13: Notice Ex.P.14: panchanama Ex.P.15: Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.16: Statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.17: Statement of P.W.11 Ex.P.18: Statement of P.W.12 Ex.P.19: Post Mortem report Ex.P.20: FIR Ex.P.21: Report Ex.P.22: Report Ex.P.23: Certificate Ex.P.24: Seizure panchanama Ex.P.25: Requisition u/Sec.173(8) of Cr.P.C.
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the Accused Persons:
D.W.1 : Cheluvegowda List of Documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused Persons:
Ex.D.1 : Photo Ex.D.2 : R.C. Book Ex.D.3 : Statement of P.W.1. Ex.D.4 : Statement of P.W.9 Ex.D.5 : Statement of P.W.10
List of Material Objects marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
M.O.1 : Nighty 41 S.C.No.664/2011 C/w S.C.No.644/2012 M.O.2 : Sweater M.O.3 : Banyan and bra M.O.4 : Petty coat M.O.5 : Nicker M.O.6 : Saree.
(T.N. INAVALLY) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46)