Bangalore District Court
State By K.R.Puram Police Station vs Savitha on 2 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH-65), AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2015
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. MADHUSUDHAN B.,
B.Com, LL.B (Spl.).,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.1121/2014
COMPLAINANT:- State by K.R.Puram Police Station,
Bengaluru.
-Vs-
ACCUSED:
1. Savitha,
W/o. Suresh,
Major, R/o. No.37,
Prajwal Nilaya,
New Manjunatha layout,
R.M.Nagara,
Bengaluru city.
2. Doreswamy,
S/o. Baris Doddegowda,
Major, R/o. Paduvaladasanahalli,
Nuggehalli,
Chanrayapatna, Hassan.
3. Suresh,
S/o. Rangaswamaiah,
Major, R/o. Prajwal Nilaya,
3rd Main, R.M.Nagara,
R.M. Nagara, Bangalore city.
4. Srikanth,
2 S.C.No.1121/2014
S/o. Hanumareddy,
Major, R/o. No.218,
Kuvempu Road, B Channasandra,
Banasawadi,
Bengaluru city.
5. Harish,
S/o. Thimmegowda,
Major, R/o.No.330,
3rd Cross, OMBR Layout,
Chikkabanasavadi,
Bangalore city.
1. Date of commission of offence : 4.4.2012
2. Date of report of offence : 4.4.2012
3. Date of arrest of the Accused : A.5 on 6.4.2012
4. Name of the complainant : Sri. Veerappa
5. Date of recording evidence : 18.2.2015
6. Date of closing evidence : 28.10.2015
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.306 of I.P.C.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused are acquitted
U/s. 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
9. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by : Sri. B.S.L., Advocate for A.1 to A.3,
Sri. S.P.Shankar, Advocate for A.4,
Sri. B.K.Manu, Advocate for A.5)
(MADHUSUDHAN B.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
3 S.C.No.1121/2014
JUDGMENT
Police Sub- Inspector of K.R.Pura police station, Bengaluru submitted charge sheet against accused for trial of offence punishable U/s. 306 of I.P.C., in Cr.No.168/2012.
2. Brief facts of this case may be stated as under;
Complainant by name Veerappa S/o. Erappa is the father of deceased V.Shivakumar, who was a civil contractor. His marriage with Pw.10/Suma was performed about 7 years back. During the wedlock, said Suma gave birth to a male child. On 1.4.2012 deceased - V.Shivakumar left his wife and son in their parental house at Chennarayapatna. On 4.4.2012 when complainant and his wife were in their house along with deceased V.Shivakumar, at about 11.00 a.m., deceased - Shivakumar told his mother that, he will sleep for about 3 to 4 hours, since he has become tiered and further requested his mother not to disturb him. At about 1.45 p.m., mother of Shivakumar tried to wake up her son - V. Shivakumar, but he did not opened the door of bed room in which he was sleeping. Thereafter, at about 2.00 p.m., again mother of Shivakumar tried to wake up Shivakumar by knocking the door of bed room. But then also Shivakumar did not responded. Finally complainant also made his best efforts to wake up Shivakumar. Then also he did not responded. Finally 4 S.C.No.1121/2014 complainant opened the door by using force and noticed that, Shivakumar was died due to hanging to the ceiling fan with veil. He also noticed that, said Shivakumar kept one death note, in which it was written that, cause of his death is noted by him in dairy kept in almira. Complainant got opened almira and on going through the contents of dairy, he came to know that, his son-Shivakumar committed suicide because of financial constraints and also for harassment by these accused. Therefore, on the same day, at about 3.20 p.m., complainant went to police station, where he lodged a written complaint, on the basis of which concerned police registered a case in Cr.No.168/2012 for trial of offence, punishable U/s. 306 of I.P.C.
3. Investigating Officer concerned started investigation, during which he has conducted spot mahazar and seized one death note, dairy, and memory card. Investigating Officer recorded statements of witnesses, secured Post Mortem Report and after completion of investigation, charge sheet is laid against accused for trial of offence punishable U/s.306 of I.P.C. During crime stage itself, accused No.5/Harish was arrested and later on he was released on bail. Other accused No.1 to 4 obtained anticipatory bail and thereafter they have also obtained regular bail. Learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence passed orders 5 S.C.No.1121/2014 for registration of criminal case in C.C.No.51301/2013 on the file of X- A.C.M.M., Bengaluru. Learned Magistrate passed orders for committal of case to the court of Prl. Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Thus, case against accused is registered in S.C.No.1121/2014. Thereafter case is made over to this court for final disposal in accordance with law. After hearing, on 8.1.2015 my predecessor-in-office framed the charges against accused which they denied, hence, claims to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution in all together cited 13 witnesses as Cw.1 to Cw.13. Among them 11 witnesses are examined as Pw.1 to Pw.11. Prosecution has given up evidence of Cw.12-complainant who is father of deceased reported to be dead. Therefore, evidence of Cw.1 was not recorded. During the course of trial, prosecution got exhibited 12 documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. One Memory Card is marked at Mo.1.
5. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution side, statements of accused as required U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., are recorded by giving an opportunity to the accused to explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. Accused have denied the evidence of the prosecution.
6 S.C.No.1121/2014
6. Defence of accused is one of total denial of prosecution case. However, they did not led their defence evidence.
7. On the material placed before the court, the following points that have arisen for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that deceased - Shivakumar S/o. Veerappa availed loan from accused No.1 to 5, and thereafter accused started to harass deceased- Shivakumar and always insisted him to repay loan amount with exorbitant interest, due to which on 4.4.2012 in between 11.30 a.m., and 2.00 p.m. Shivakumar S/o. Veerappa committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan in a room of house bearing No.32 situated at 16th Cross Koudenahalli, Akshayanagara, K.R.Pura, Bengaluru and within the limits of K.R.Pura police station, Bengaluru, since accused No.1 to 5 abetted deceased- Shivakumar to commit suicide as they were harassing him in the matter of financial transaction, thereby accused No.1 to 5 committed offence of abetment to commit suicide punishable U/s. 306 of I.P.C.?
2. To what Order ?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1:- During course of arguments learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued contending that, contents of Ex.P.4 and 5 coupled with version of Pw.9 clearly discloses that, these accused were 7 S.C.No.1121/2014 harassing deceased- Shivakumar and because of that only Shivakumar took extreme step of suicide. He also argued contending that, circumstances in which deceased- Shivakumar died would clearly establishes the main ingredients of the offence punishable U/s.306 of I.P.C. Therefore, he submitted that, prosecution has substantiated the charges leveled against accused. Thus, prayed for recording conviction.
10. Per contra learned advocate appearing for accused also vehemently argued contending that, main ingredients of sections 107 and 108 I.P.C. are not established by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He also argued contending that, there is no any conclusive proof that, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 are written by deceased- Shivakumar. Investigating Officer has not collected other material in order to prove that Ex.P.4 and 5 were written by deceased- Shivakumar just prior to his committing suicide. He has also submitted that prosecution has not disclosed the contents of memory card, thereby it cannot be held that, accused abetted for commission of suicide. He further argued contending that, evidence of Pw.9 who claims to be the wife of deceased clearly discloses that, it was not first time that deceased - Shivakumar tried to finish his life, since prior to his death, he attempted to commit suicide for more than two times, but some how, due to quick treatment provided to him, he could survive. 8 S.C.No.1121/2014 Therefore, it is contended that, cause of death of Shivakumar is suicide but there is no any conclusive proof that, these accused abetted for committing suicide. He further argued contending that, even evidence of mother of deceased - Shivakumar does not discloses any ingredients of offence of abetment to suicide. He further argued contending that, there is glaring discrepancies between version of Pw.9 and Investigating Officer, in not securing the admitted hand writing of deceased. Hence, he inter- alia argued contending that, there is no any sufficient evidence on record to connect these accused for the death of Shivakumar. Therefore, prayed for acquittal.
11. Keeping these rival contentions in my mind, I have gone through the material placed in this case, among the main witnesses examined by the prosecution, Pw.1 and Pw.8 are the panch witnesses for the seizure mahazar marked at Ex.P.1 under which one death note, dairy, containing the death note and memory card are recovered. Pw.2 to Pw.4 are panch witnesses for inquest mahazar marked at Ex.P.2. Pw.5 is the head constable, who according to the story of the prosecution arrested accused No.5. Pw.6 is the another police constable who was deputed for getting autopsy report. Pw.7 is the doctor who conducted autopsy. Pw.9 is the wife while Pw.10 is the mother of deceased. Pw.11 is the Investigating 9 S.C.No.1121/2014 Officer. It is pertinent to note that, complaint was lodged by father of deceased. But it is unfortunate that, complainant/father of deceased died. Therefore, prosecution could not examined complainant by name Veerappa S/o. Erappa. Therefore, on going through the evidence, it appears that, most material witnesses for prosecution are Pw.9, Pw.10 and Pw.11. It is undisputed fact that, on 4.4.2012 Shivakumar who is husband of Pw.9 committed suicide. But as per the story of the prosecution, cause of suicide is harassment which was given by these accused to the deceased- Shivakumar. On the other hand, defence of accused is total denial of the prosecution case. Therefore, in order to prove the guilt of the accused prosecution is expected to prove ingredients of provision of Sections 107 and 108 of I.P.C. R/w.Section 306 of I.P.C.
12. Pw.1 and Pw.8, who are panch witnesses for seizure mahazar marked at Ex.P.1 have not supported the story of the prosecution in the matter of recovery of death note, one dairy containing the death note and memory card. Pw.2, Pw.3 and Pw.4 are inquest panchas but they have also not supported the version of prosecution. Therefore, evidence of Pw.1, Pw.8 and Pw.2 to Pw.4 are not useful for prosecution to prove recovery of one memory card and Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5.
10 S.C.No.1121/2014
13. Even evidence of Pw.5 and Pw.6 are not much significant in assessing the criminal liability of accused. Main witnesses for prosecution are Pw.9, Pw.10 and Pw.11. As per the story of the prosecution Pw.9 was not in the home when deceased - Shivakumar committed suicide. She came to know about the fact of death of her husband and only thereafter she returned to Bengaluru. On perusal of her evidence, it is clear that, it is not first time that her husband tried to commit suicide. In her cross examination she has clearly admitted on 12.7.2011 her husband attempted to commit suicide by consuming tablets. She also admitted that, it is she who admitted her husband at Koshis Hospital, Bengaluru and after treatment her husband - Shivakumar was survived. She also admitted that, at that time, her husband was admitted in the said hospital as indoor patient and he was discharged from the said hospital on 16.7.2011. In her further cross examination she has admitted that her husband attempted to commit suicide again on 14.11.2011 and at that time also, she get him admitted to Koshis Hospital, Bengaluru and at that time also he was survived. She has also admitted that, at second attempt also her husband got admitted in the said hospital as indoor patient and was discharged from the hospital on 17.11.2011, after he was fully recovered. Even a step ahead in her further cross examination clearly admitted that, her husband 11 S.C.No.1121/2014 was in the habit of attempting to commit suicide. Thus, it is crystal clear that, before death of Shivakumar, he attempted to commit suicide, twice.
Coming back to the Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5.
Ex.P.4 reads as under;
"£À£Àß ¸Á«UÉ PÁgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß qÉÊjAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢zÉÝãÉ. CzÀÄ ©ÃgÀÄ«£À ¯ÁPÀgÀ°èzÉ. CzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀĪÀÄ CxÀªÁ ZÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ vÉUÉAiÀĨÉÃPÀÄ. zÀAiÀÄ«lÄÖ PÀë«Ä¹."
¸À» /-
Ex.P.5 reads as under:
"¸ÀĪÀÄ zÀAiÀÄ«lÄÖ PÀë«Ä¸ÀÄ, a£ÀÄß, ºÉêÀÄAvÀ £À£Àß PÀë«Ä¸ÀÄ sorry a£Àß. ¸ÀĪÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ M¼Éî UÀAqÀ£ÁUÀ°®è ¥Á¥ÀÅ ºÉêÀÄAvïUÉ M¼Éî vÀAzÉAiÀiÁUÀ°®è. F ¢£À ¤«Ää§âjUÉ ªÉƸÀ ªÀiÁr ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. zÀAiÀÄ«lÄÖ PÀë«Ä¹, EzÀPÉÌ PÁgÀt £À£Àß PÀªÀÄð £ÀÁ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ vÀ¥ÀÅà CzÀPÉÌ PÁgÀt ¸À«vÀ ¸ÀÄgÉñï CªÀ¼À ªÉÆøÀ¢AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ F ¢£À F ²PÉë. CªÀ¼ÀÄ 2003 jAzÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß DlªÁr¹zÁÝ¼É ªÀÄvÉÛ 2008 jAzÀ £À¤ßAzÀ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ zÀÄqÀÄØ QwÛzÁݼÉ. EªÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EªÀgÀ C¥Àà ªÉÆøÀUÁgÀgÀÄ. DzÀgÉ dUÀvÀÄÛ £ÀA§GªÀÅ¢®è CzÀPÁÌV £Á£ÀÄ MAzÀÄ «rAiÉÆ vÀÄtÄPÀÄ EnÖzÉÝÃ£É ªÉĪÉÆjPÁqïð£À°èzÉ. EªÀjUÁV £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉýzÉ. ²æÃPÁAvï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀjñï (PÁAw ¹éÃmïì) EªÀgÀ ºÀwÛgÀ ºÀt¥ÀqÉzÉ CªÀjUÉ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌAzÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÉ. CªÀgÀÄ PÉÆlÖ ºÀtPÉÌ qÀ§â¯ï PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉýzÉÝ DzÀgÉ CªÀjUÉ §rØ PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛ §A¢zÉÝÃ£É MAzÀƪÀgÉ ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ, DzÀgÉ FUÀ CªÀgÀ ºÀtPÁÌV ¦Ãr¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. £À£Àß°è ºÀt«®è §rØUÁV ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ §AUÁgÀªÉ®è CqÀ EnÖzÉÝãÉ. DzÀgÉ CªÀgÀ £À¤ßAzÀ ZÉPï ¥ÀqÉ¢zÁÝgÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨ÁåPïªÉÄÃ¯ï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. ºÀjñï FUÀ 12 S.C.No.1121/2014 ºÉÆÃzÀ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ZÉPï eÉÆvÉUÉ CVæªÉÄAmïUÀÆ ¸À» ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀ £À£ÀUÉ §AiÀĪÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ ²æÃPÁAvï ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ£É. £Á£ÀÄ vÀÄA§ ªÀÉÆøÀ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝãÉ. ¸À«vÀ ¸ÀÄgÉÃ±ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ £À£Àß «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß HjUÉ w½¸ÀÄvÉÛ£ÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁPÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄvÉÛ CªÀgÀ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ w½¸ÀÄvÉÛÃÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ. EwÛZÉUÉ CªÀgÀ CAzÀgÉ ¸À«vÀ ¸ÀA§A¢PÀgÀÄ ¥ÉÇÃ£ï ªÀiÁr £À£ÀUÉ «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹zgÀÄ. «µÀAiÀ CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄV¸À®Ä ¥Áè£ï ªÁrzÁÝgÉ JZÀÑgÀ¢A¢j JAzÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ vÀÄA¨Á M¼Éî jÃwAiÀÄ°è ºÉýzÀÝgÀÄ. ¤ÃªÀÅ M¼ÉîAiÀĪÀgÀÄ CªÀjUÉ zÀÄqÀÄØ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃr JAzÀÄ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¨sÁgÀw JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. CªÀgÀ £ÀA§gï £À£Àß ªÉƨÉʯï°èzÉ ¥ÁwÛgÁeï (M£Àgï CAPÀ¯ïUÀÆ £À£Àß ¸Áj) ºÉý CªÀgÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á J¼ÉîAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀÄ £À£Àß vÀ¦à¤AzÀ F ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É CzÀPÁÌVAiÉÄà £Á£ÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ¥Á¥ÀÅ ºÉêÀÄAvï C£ÀÄß HjUÉ ©lÄÖ §A¢zÀÄÝ CzÉãÀÄ DgÀÄ wAUÀ½¤AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÀÄA¨Á £ÉÆêÁVzÉ ¸ÁAiÀÄĪÀAvÁVUÉ. DzÀgÉ ¸ÁªÀÅ §A¢gÀ°®è. ªÀÄvÀÉÛ ¸ÁgÀUÁgÀzÀ PÁl vÁ¼À¯ÁgÉ. £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀÄA§ £ÉÆêÁVzÉ.
PÀÆ°ªÀiÁrAiÀiÁzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀĪÀÄ ¤£Àß ºÉêÀÄAvï £À£ÀÄß ¸ÁPÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ D¸É. DzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ ¸Á®UÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸À«vÀ CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ £À£ÀUÉ vÀÄA¨Á vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. ºÀjÃ±ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æÃPÁAvïUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀĪÀ ºÀtzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛzÀAvÉ JgÀqÀgÀµÀÄÖ ZÉPÀÄÌ ¤ÃrzÉÝãÉ. ¸À«vÀ CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ zÉÆgɸÁé«ÄUÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ®PÀëzÀ JgÀqÀÄ ZÉPï ¤ÃrzÉÝãÉ. DzÀjAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÀsAiÀĪÁVzÉ. ¸Á®UÁgÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ qÉqï ¯ÉÊ£ï ¤ÃrzÁÝgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀë«Ä¹. C¥Àà, CªÀÄä, UÉÆæ, ZÉAzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀë«Ä¹. ZÀAzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀÄ ¤Ã£É PÁ¥ÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ËªÀÄå ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÁV vÀÄA¨Á PÀµÀÖ¥ÀmÉÖ DzÀgÉ CªÀgÀÄ ¸Àj¬Ä®è. ¸ÀĪÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁgÀtPÀÆÌ ¸ËªÀÄå CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÉÃqÀ PÀµÀÖ §AzÀgÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÉÃqÀ. ZÀAzÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁUÉAzÀæ vÀÄA¨Á PÀµÀÖ¥ÀlÄÖ §zÀÄPÀÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÉ DzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ D AiÉÆÃUÀ«®è. £Á£ÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á zÀÄgÀzÀÄʵÀÖ PÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÀĵÀå 13 S.C.No.1121/2014 DzÀjAzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß (¸ÀĪÀiÁ¼À£ÀÄß) ¤ÃªÀÅ £ÉÆÃrPÉÆ½î £À£Àß°è FUÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀt«®è, D¹Û E®è MqÀªÉ¬Ä®è, MAzÀÄ PÁgÀÄ EzÉ. CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁj¹ ºÉêÀÄAvï fêÀ£ÀPÉÌ K£ÁzÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄ, ZÀAzÀÄ CPÀÌA¢jUÉ K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ°®è JAzÀÄ £ÉÆêÀÅ £À£ÀVzÉ zÀAiÀÄ«lÄÖ PÀë«Ä¹ ¸ÀĪÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á M¼ÉîAiÀĪÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀÁ£ÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ UÀAqÀ£ÁV §gÀ¨ÁgÀ¢vÀÄÛ. ºÉêÀÄAvï sorry £Á£ÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ¥À¥Àà C®è £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀë«Ä¹. £À£ÀUÉ FUÀ ¸ÁªÀÅ C®èzÉ ¨ÉÃgÉzÁj E®è, ¸Á®UÁgÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ 5gÀªÀgÉUÉ qÉqï¯ÉÊ£ï ¤ÃrzÁÝgÉ. ªÀÆrzÀ vÀ¦àUÉ ²PÉë C£ÀĨÀs«¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀë«Ä¸ÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀÄ ¤£Àß ¥Á¥ÀÅ£À £É£À¹PÉÆAqÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á £ÉÆêÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÁAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀPÀÆÌ EµÀÖ«®è. DzÀgÉ ¸Á® £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¸Á¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛzÉ £Á£ÀÄ 6 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ £ÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß ºÉüÀ¯ÁUÀzÉ ¸ÁAiÀÄÄwÛzÉÝãÉ.É CzÀPÁÌV FUÀ F ¤zsÁðgÀ ªÀÄvÉÛ MAzÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ «rAiÉÆ Qè¥ï £ÉÆÃr ¸À«vÀ CªÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ ªÀiÁvÁ£ÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛUÀÄvÉÛ. £Á£ÀÄ CªÀjUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ zÀÄqÀÄØ w½AiÀÄÄvÉÛ zÀAiÀÄ«lÄÖ PÀë«Ä¹ ¸ÀĪÀÄ, ºÉêÀÄAvï."
"ªÉÄêÉÆjPÁqïð F qÉÊjAiÀÄ°èzÉ eÉÆ¥Á£À."
¸À» /-
If I perused the contents of Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5, another connecting material available for the prosecution is Mo.1, which is Memory Card. But it is pertinent to note that, during investigation, Investigating Officer has not at all disclosed the real contents of memory card. Usually in memory card audio and video will be stored. But neither during investigation nor during trial no any efforts are made by Investigating Officer to 14 S.C.No.1121/2014 demonstrate to know the actual contents of memory card. It is specific defence of the accused that, Mo.1 though it is memory card, but there is no any incriminating evidence against them either in audio or in video which said to have been contained in Mo.1/memory card. On this aspect Investigating Officer in his cross examination clearly stated as under;
" ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ 1 ªÉƨÉʯï a¥ï£À°ègÀĪÀ ¸ÀAUÀwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß w½zÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä £À£Àß vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è ¸Éʧgï JPïì¥Àmïìð PÀqÉAiÀĪÀjAzÀ ¥ÀjÃQë¹gÀ°®è CAvÁ ºÉüÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ 1 a¥ï£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀAUÀw EgÀzÉà EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAvÀ¯Éà £Á£ÀÄ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¸Éʧgï JPïì¥Àmïìð PÀqÉAiÀĪÀjAzÀ ¥ÀjÃQë¹gÀ°®è CAvÁ ºÉüÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
If this portion of evidence of Pw.11 is considered it appears that, Investigating Officer has not at all made any efforts to disclose what exactly memory card contains. Therefore, even if it is held that, Investigating Officer has recovered Mo.1 during investigation, but mere production of memory card is of no any useful for prosecution to connect the same to these accused. Therefore, Mo.1 is not conclusive proof of commission of offence by accused.
14. So for as Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 are concerned and also I am of the opinion that, both Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 does not contained the date on 15 S.C.No.1121/2014 which it was written, even there is no any indication in Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 about the time at which it was written. It is specific defence of accused that, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 are not in the hand writing of deceased - Shivakumar. Ofcourse, Pw.9 in her evidence, identified that contents of Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 are written by her husband and she states that, it is the handwriting of her husband only. But when defence denied this fact, Investigating Officer ought to have secured admitted hand writing of deceased and same should have been sent to handwriting experts to get his opinion about the hand writing contained in Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5. Pw.11 in his evidence stated that, during course of his investigation, he tried to trace out other hand writings of Shivakumar, but both Pw.9 and Cw.1/complainant told that, they have no any other documents which are in contained the handwriting of deceased - Shivakumar. I feel it necessary to reproduce cross examination of Pw.11 on this aspect, which reads thus;
"£À£Àß vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ£À ¥ÀwßAiÀiÁzÀ C¸À-9 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄÊvÀ ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀ£À ºÀ¸ÁÛPÀëgÀUÀ½zÀÝ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAvÁ «ZÁj¹zÉÝ DzÀgÉ C¸À-9 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀ£À ºÀ¸ÁÛPÀëgÀUÀ½zÀÝ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è CAvÁ w½¹zÀݼÀÄ. ZÁ¸À-1 gÀªÀjUÀÆ PÀÆqÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è ªÀÄÊvÀ ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀ£À ºÀ¸ÁÛPÀëgÀUÀ½zÀÝ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 16 S.C.No.1121/2014 ¤ÃqÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ CAvÁ «ZÁj¹zÉÝ DzÀgÉ DvÀ£ÀÄ PÀÆqÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀ£À ºÀ¸ÁÛPÀëgÀUÀ½zÀÝ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è CAvÁ w½¹zÀÝ."
But contrary to this Pw.9 in her cross examination stats as under;
"FUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¤.¦.-4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤.¦.-5 (J) UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀ §gÀºÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛzÉÃÝ £É F JgÀqÀÄ §gÀºÀU¼À ÀÄ MAzÉà vÉgÀ£ÁzÀ §gÀºÀUÀ½gÀÄvÀÛª.É ¤.¦.-4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤.¦.-5 (J) CAvÁ UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀ §gÀºÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À E£ÀÄß½zÀ ºÀ¸ÁÛPÀëgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀÆqÀ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. D ¨ÉÃgÉ ºÀ¸ÁÛPÀëgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÉǰøïgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ PÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ £À£ßÀ UÀAqÀ£À ¨ÉÃgÉ ºÀ¸ÁÛPÀëgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÉǰøïjUÉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
Thus, it appears that, though other documents containing handwriting of deceased - Shivakumar were available to Investigating Officer but he has not made any efforts to collect such documents to obtain opinion of handwriting experts. In the absence of corroborative evidence, it is highly risky to place reliance on contents of Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5.
15. I have gone through the evidence of Pw.10, who is mother of deceased. She has not whispered even a single sentence against any of 17 S.C.No.1121/2014 the accused. She was treated as hostile witness and learned Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine her. But even, during course of her cross examination she has specifically denied the fact of having given her statement before police as per Ex.P.6. Therefore, even evidence of Pw.10 does not connect accused for the death of Shivakumar.
16. On strict scrutiny of evidence on record it infers that, Shivakumar had availed loan and he was facing financial difficulties since the year 2011 because during month of July 2011 as well as during month of November 2011 he tried to commit suicide twice, and it is third time that, he tried to commit suicide on 4.4.2012 in his home, but at third time, he could not survived, thus died because of suicide. Merely because he committed suicide, this by itself is no any conclusive proof that, these accused abetted to commit suicide. Even on going through the contents of Ex.P.5, it is clear that, in suicide note, except referring the names of accused, there is no specific reference about an act or incidence, whereby accused were alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide. There is no any acceptable evidence in regard to actual abetment by any of the accused. Ingredients of the offence U/s. 306 of I.P.C. are not established. Even for moment it is held that, accused 18 S.C.No.1121/2014 No.1 to 4 had advanced loan to the deceased, but they cannot be held guilty of the abetting the commission of suicide, just because deceased availed loan from accused. Under these circumstances, I have serious doubt about the truthfulness of prosecution case.
17. In view of my above discussions and in the result, I have come to the conclusion that, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer this point No.1 in the Negative.
18. POINT NO.2: In view of my findings on the above point No.1, accused No.1 to 5 are entitled for acquittal. Being of that opinion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused No.1 to 5 are acquitted U/s. 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/s.306 of I.P.C.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds shall stands cancelled.
However, accused No.1 to 5 are hereby directed to execute fresh bail bonds for Rs.50,000/- each with one surety for the likesum, to secure their presence before higher court, in case any appeal is preferred against this judgment of acquittal, as required U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C., and such bail 19 S.C.No.1121/2014 bonds shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
Mo.1 /Memory Card is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of December , 2015.) (MADHUSUDHAN B.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 Harish
Pw.2 Manjunath
Pw.3 Srinivas
Pw.4 Anand
Pw.5 Somashekhar
Pw.6 Manjunath
Pw.7 Dr.B.M.Nagaraj
Pw.8 Mukund
Pw.9 Suma
Pw.10 Varalakshmi
Pw.11 Mallikarjuna M.
II. For Defence:-
20 S.C.No.1121/2014
- Nil-
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the
Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Mahazar
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of Pw.8
Ex.P.1(c) Signature Pw.11
Ex.P.2 Inquest Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of Pw.2
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of Pw.3
Ex.P.2(c) Signature of Pw.11
Ex.P.3 Post Mortem Report
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of Pw.7
Ex.P.4 Death Note
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of deceased
Ex.P.5 One Dairy
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of victim
Ex.P.6 Statement of Pw.10
Ex.P.7 F.I.R.
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of Pw.11
Ex.P.8 Complaint
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of Pw.11
Ex.P.8(b) Signature
Ex.P.9 to P.11 Three photos
Ex.P.12 Voluntary statement of accused No.5
For Defence side:-
Nil
IV. List of material objects marked:-
Mo.1 Memory card
(MADHUSUDHAN B.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.