Bangalore District Court
Nandini Layout P.S vs Guruprasad on 3 May, 2024
KABC010045722017
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 3rd day of May, 2024.
Present;
Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.,
LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
SC.No.86/2016
COMPLAINANT: STATE
Represented by
Nandini Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED : H.Guruprasad,
S/o Eeraiah,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at No.8, Ist Main, 4th cross,
Preremnagar,
Laggere, Bengaluru.
Permanent resident:
No.4-114,
Govindanagar, Rajeev Nagar,
Thirupathi, Chittoor,
Andhra Pradesh
(Rep.by Sri.PR., Advocate).
2 SC.No.86/2016
1. Date of commission of offence : 28.04.2013
2. Date of report of Offence : 30.04.2013
3. Name of the Complainant : Lakshmanamurthy
4. Date of commencement of : 01.02.2018
recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence : 25.08.2022
6. Offences Complained are : U/sec.366, 344, 306 of IPC
& u/s Sec.3(2)(v)of the
SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
7. Opinion of the Judge : The accused convicted for
the offences punishable
u/s. 366, 344 of IPC &
acquitted for the offence
punishable u/s Sec.306 of
IPC and sec.3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
JUDGMENT
The ACP, Malleshwaram Sub-division, Bengaluru has submitted Charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section U/sec.366, 344, 306 of IPC & u/s Sec.3(2)(v)of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution is that the victim is belonging to Bhovi caste, the daughter of the complainant. The accused is belonging to Banajiga caste. The complainant reported before the 3 SC.No.86/2016 jurisdictional police that on 30.4.2013 that his daughter aged 16 years K.L. Shalini, who is a minor has been kidnapped by the accused H.Guruprasad S/o.Eeraiah. The victim is now 16 years, she had attended examination of SSLC recently, her date of birth is 17.9.1997, she has been missing since 28.4.2013 at 12.30 p.m. from Mahalakshmi layout, there is doubt on the person resident of Nandini Layout Ganesha Block road, H.Guruprasad S/o.Eeraiah. When she had gone to shop had been kidnapped her, to trace the victim he had given complaint.
3. On the basis of complaint, Investigating Officer took up investigation. Further as the victim belonging to schedule caste, the jurisdictional ACP has filed charge sheet against the accused only on 20.1.2016 for the above offence.
4. After filing of charge sheet this Court took cognizance of the offences and charge sheet copy was furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before the charge. As 4 SC.No.86/2016 there was sufficient materials available, charge framed for the above said offences, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language and he pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.
5. The prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused got examined 13 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and got exhibited 27 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27. After completion of evidence of prosecution, the statement of the accused U/Sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure recorded. The accused denied incriminating evidence which is recorded.
6. Heard the arguments, perused the materials available on record and the following points would arise for the determination of this Court are as follows;
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 28.04.2013 at 12.30 pm at No.5/23, Near Sheethal Home Needs shop, accused kidnapped the victim from Nandini Layout Ganesha Block road pretending that he will marry the 5 SC.No.86/2016 victim and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 28.4.2013 at 12.30 p.m accused took the deceased victim from her house and confined her in the house No.12/2/125B, 2nd floor, Nimba Khayala veedi, Thirupathi and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 344 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 12.5.2015 at No.12/2/125B, 2nd floor, Nimba Khayala veedi, Thirupathi, abetting victim deceased to commit suicide, as accused made her not to talk with neighbours, and gave torture in order to commit suicide and thereby committed offence punishable under section 306 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on aforesaid date, time and place, the accused not being the member of SC/ST has abetted the deceased victim to commit suicide, who belongs to scheduled caste and thereby committed offence which is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or imprisonment for life and thereby committed offences punishable under 6 SC.No.86/2016 section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,?
5) What order?
7. My findings to the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : In the Affirmative Point No.3 : In the Negative Point No.4 : In the Negative Point No.5 : As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
8. The arguments of learned SPP submits accused is known to the victim and they were residing for a period of 2 years in Tirupathi. The victim became very close to some other person at Tirupathi is the mens-rea for the accused, as such he started torturing the victim. Thereafter the occupants of the room were going to work namely Sandya, her brother Sai Krishna is a student and the accused were going to work. Victim alone was used to be locked in the room and she was not allowed to talk even to the neighbours, as such, she has been tortured. 7 SC.No.86/2016 The allegations are specific that victim being tortured was forced to commit suicide, as such the charge sheeted of the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.306 of IPC being placed on record. In fact there were 28 witnesses as per the charge sheet. The prosecution is able to place and examine PWs.1 to 13. The evidence of these witnesses are complete so as to bring home the guilt of the accused. The complainant, father of the victim has specifically complained that accused alone is responsible for kidnapping his daughter and only after the victim reportedly dead this complainant came to know about the whereabouts of the victim and as per his own complaint given two years back it is proved that victim was residing along with accused only. In fact the Ex.P.1 to 5 specifically makes clear the case of prosecution and the material witnesses PWs.7, 8, and 9 who are examined. Their evidence corroborates with the prosecution case.
9. Initially in the year 2013 complaint was given as a missing complaint. The Investigating Officer though registered missing complaint was unable to track down 8 SC.No.86/2016 accused or the victim. After two years eight months when victim succumbed at Tirupathi a crime has been registered by the police at Andhra Pradesh but in turn informed the Bengaluru police. As such the information with regard to the crime registered in East police station of Tirupathi came to the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant and family members went there as per Ex.P.24 the Chittur Sandya who was residing alone victim in the house did informed the complainant about the torture meted out to the victim at Tirupathi. He had given further statement to that effect.
10. The accused has been arrested at Tirupathi and he has been brought from the Tirupathi police station to Bengaluru and produced before the Investigating Officer. The accused statement and since further statement clearly discloses the involvement of the accused in the alleged crime of Sec.366 of IPC and he had confined the victim, as such other offence punishable u/s.344 of IPC, proved. In fact the death of the victim is having direct nexus to the accused as such the offence punishable 9 SC.No.86/2016 u/s.306 of IPC is also proved. The evidence of PWs.4 and 5 and the victim suicide clearly established the guilt of the accused. As such accused is to be convicted.
11. The learned counsel for the accused submits the FIR Ex.P.19 discloses P.W.1 got lodged crime as per sec.366A of IPC against the accused on 28.4.2013 which has been reported on 30.4.2013 as per Ex.P.1. In fact no any investigation done till 2015. Only on 27.12.2015 when the death of the victim was came to the knowledge of the Investigating Officer they started recording further statement of complainant and there is no investigation done on the missing complaint. In fact the caste of the victim is not mentioned in the complaint as per Ex.P.6. The caste is not known, but no mention about low caste of victim. The ingredients of offence punishable u/s.3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 have been added only to the benefit of the family of the victim. In fact the statutory provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 cannot be invoked since as to the fact in existence as on date of incident, there was no amendment, as such the ingredients of 10 SC.No.86/2016 offence punishable u/s.3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 cannot be invoked. In fact the missing complaint, the panchas have been dropped. Even the cross of P.W.1 after missing complaint, the other family members of P.W.1 and even complainant have suppressed the fact that they were knowing about the victim as she is in continuous contact with PWs.2 and 3 since the year 2013 but they did not inform about her presence to the jurisdictional police. The PWs.1 and 2 in their cross examination have given indication that they were knowing to victim prior to the date of alleged tracing of the victim. In fact the cross examination of PWs.1, 2 and 3 establishes the defence, that the victim was in touch with the family members. In fact the examination in chief of P.W.4 itself is in support of the defence rather comes to the aid of the prosecution. On the date of death, the victim was aged about 18 years 25 days i.e. on 12.12.2015. The P.W.5 has submitted about school record of the victim, the P.W.6 has submitted about caste report, they are not seriously disputed and there is no incriminating material against accused appearing in their 11 SC.No.86/2016 evidence. The P.W.7 cross examination makes clear that there is no any material collected by the Investigating Officer to prove the commission of alleged offence. The learned counsel brings to the court notice that the Assistant Commissioner of Police has specifically admitted in his cross examination that he has not conducted any investigation as per SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 is invoked he just presented the charge sheet by invoking the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. In fact ACP took up investigation on 26.12.2015. The DCP has given order on 27.12.2015. The investigation with regard to offence punishable u/s.366 A has been taken up only after death of the victim. Therefore none of the ingredients of alleged offence have been made out by the prosecution. The procedure are not followed in conducting Mahazar by issuing notice to any of the material witness. In fact no any 164 statement recorded or video recording made as per the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. Accordingly seeks acquittal.
12 SC.No.86/2016
12. This court did framed charge on 12.7.2023 by recasting charge framed by my Predecessor in office. The offence punishable u/s.366, 306, 344, IPC have been framed distinctly.
13. POINT NO.1: The prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.366 of IPC, basically relies on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 who are the parents of the victim K.L.Shalini. These witnesses even as discussed supra have specifically depose that on 28.4.2013 at 12.30 p.m the daughter of the P.W.1 and 2 was missing from their house. They did lodge complaint as per Ex.P.1. In Ex.P.1, in the cross examination of P.W.1, he specifically explains he himself has given written complaint wherein he has specifically mentioned along with accused his daughter has gone. It is established since the date of missing i.e. on 28.4.2013 upto the date of death of the victim 12.12.2015 victim was along with accused only. In fact as argued by the learned counsel for the accused, the accused never took her but victim went voluntarily with the accused cannot be considered since 13 SC.No.86/2016 as admitted by PW.1 in his cross examination. He never came to know about his daughter from the date of missing complaint till the date of death. The suggestion made to the PWs.1 to 3 that they were knowing that the victim was in continued contact with these PWs.1 to 3, as per suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused does not finds any support since as per the suggestion the defence namely accused should have done some act which shows he is either innocent or the allegation, that the accused has taken away the victim from her Natural Residence is not with any coercion or influence but it is the voluntary conduct of the victim is to be specifically answered by the accused alone, is my firm view. However there are no materials placed to that effect by the accused. Under such circumstances, in proof of the ingredient of offence punishable u/s.366 of IPC the victim has been taken away from her Natural Residence is established. However the intention of the accused to marry the victim or the accused compelled the victim to marry self or any other person against her will that she has been seduced to have illicit intercourse or she has 14 SC.No.86/2016 been forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with accused or any other person so the other ingredients of Sec.366 are not established, however the victim has been moved away from the Natural Residence which amounts to kidnapping the same ingredients are also found in sec.366A. In fact even as per the cross examination of the P.W.1, the specific questions made by the learned counsel for the accused are being answered by the P.W.1 that his daughter was born as deposed in cross examination is on 17.9.1997. In that regard he has placed Aadhar card as per Ex.P.7. In fact in his cross examination has specifically admitted Ex.P.1 is in his handwriting only. To the suggestion that he has given first complaint on 30.4.2015 in that complaint he has not mentioned about his caste is admitted. However the victim father had given complaint on 30.4.2013 only. However he admits the signature and suggestion made by the defence, but this discrepancy in admission cannot take away the fact that victim went missing only on 28.4.2013 and it has been reported on 30.4.2013 only finds support in the evidence of the PWs.2 and 3 which was not been able to demolish by the 15 SC.No.86/2016 defence. The suggestions made to P.W.1 though this witness admits that his daughter went missing on 28.4.2015 is admitted in page-6 of P.W.1 cross examination but he has specifically answered in further cross examination at page-8 his daughter expired only on 12.12.2015 after 2 days 8 months on lodging the missing complaint goes against the defence rather it supports the defence to consider that victim who is a minor has not been abducted by the accused. In fact in the case on hand, the official witness namely the Investigating Officer who conducted spot Mahazar received the complaint from the complainant. The P.W.9 has specifically deposes in consonance with the prosecution case. This witness has been cross examined but admits in Ex.P.1 after taking the complaint the seal of the police station is not placed on Ex.P.1 is admitted. This witness also specifically admits caste of the victim has not been mentioned therein. Therefore to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.366 of IPC the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 though they are family members their evidence specifically supports the prosecution case. Moreover the P.W.5 the Headmistress 16 SC.No.86/2016 of East West Public School has deposed about issuing the Ex.P.10 to 12 on the request of the Investigating Officer. This fact establishes the victim is aged only 16 years as on the date of accused moving here from Bengaluru to Tirupathi is established. Accordingly this court is of the firm opinion that prosecution is able to place substantial corroboration material evidence to show the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.366 of IPC that accused abducted the victim K.L.Shalini from Bengaluru to Tirupathi is established. Accordingly I answer this Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
14. POINT NO.2: In the case on hand, the prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.344 of IPC wrongful confinement for 10 days or more relies on the evidence of material witnesses PWs.1 to 3, P.W.4 is the Police Inspector of East police station Tirupathi. In the evidence of complainant this witness deposes they are belonging to 'Bhovi community' is having two daughters, the elder one is Hemalatha and younger one is K.L.Shalini who was aged about 16 years, 17 SC.No.86/2016 when she went missing. They were residing in Nandini layout and accused house was in Nanjundeshwara Nagara of Mahalakshmi layout which is at a distance of 1 km from their house. This accused belongs to Ganiga community, and his deceased daughter was studying in East West Public School, Mahalakshmi layout, Bengaluru in SSLC. She had completed her SSLC examination. On 28.4.2013 at about 12.30 p.m his deceased daughter went to shopping opposite to S.J.International School at Sheethal Provisional Stores and after that she returned to the house. They searched here and there but as they could not trace they gave complaint as the accused was also missing and accused used to follow his daughter to which they warned accused not to do the same. He reported as per Ex.P.1 before the jurisdictional police on 30.4.2013. The police visited the spot on 1.5.2013 and conducted the spot Mahazar in presence of CWs.2 and 3 as per Ex.P.2. This witness deposes they were residing near their house at the time of drawing of Mahazar. His daughter was born on 17.9.1997. After his complaint though Investigating Officer took up investigation his daughter was not traced. 18 SC.No.86/2016 In his cross examination has specifically answered the question put forth by the counsel for the accused in page- 5 dtd:21.2.2018 that he made complaint only on 30.4.2015, as per suggestion he admits the Ex.P.1 is in his handwriting. Even after 6 months, police could not trace his daughter. This witness deposes the school of the daughter is at a distance of 1 km from their house. He deposes his daughter was born on Wednesday. This witness deposes his daughter was missing on 28.4.2015. As per the suggestion he deposes his daughter was gone to school and he lodged false complaint is denied. This witness deposes that at about 10.00 a.m he went to the police station and lodged complaint and denies the suggestion that he knows the panchas and they were called to Ex.P.2. This witness deposes near the Sheethal stores Mahazar was drawn in Ganeshapura, Nandini Layout, Bengaluru. This witness deposes he cannot give discrepancy now with regard to the spot. This witness deposes specifically he does not know where his daughter was till her death. This witness deposes at the time of his younger daughter went missing, his elder daughter had 19 SC.No.86/2016 come to his house for delivery purpose. This witness denies the suggestion that he has not mentioned about his daughter was missing when she went to Sheethal Provisional Stores. This witness specifically answers when he went to the house of accused he found accused was also not in the house. This witness admits his daughter went missing for a period of 2 years 8 months and later came to know that she has succumbed only on 12.12.2015. This witness admits the aadhar card as per Ex.P.7 and other 2 documents as per Ex.P.8 and 9.
15. In the case on hand, the P.W.2 mother of the victim deposes her daughter is youngest and she knows the accused, but deposes she does not know the caste of the accused. This witness deposes only on 28.4.2013 his daughter went missing and she never returned thereafter. They had complained and police visited the spot. In the complaint they have mentioned accused has taken away her daughter. They came to know about the death of her daughter, they went to Tirupathi. There in the house where accused and victim were residing she had hanged 20 SC.No.86/2016 herself to fan with a veil, there police did registered crime. This witness specifically deposes "ನನ್ನ ಮಗಳು ಶಾಲಿನಿಯನ್ನು ಆರೋಪಿ ಗುರುಪ್ರಸಾದ್ ಅಪಹರಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿ ತಿರುಪತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಮನೆಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿ ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಆಕೆಯನ್ನು ಆ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇರಿಸಿದ್ದ ನೆಂದು ಗೊತ್ತಾಯಿತು. ಅಲ್ಲಿ ತಿರುಪತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಮನೆಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ನನ್ನ ಮಗಳು ಶಾಲಿನಿಯನ್ನು ಇರಿಸಿ ಆಕೆಗೆ ಹೊರಗೆ ಎಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಹೋಗದಂತೆ ನಿರ್ಬಂಧಿಸಿ ಬೇರೆಯವರ ಜೊತೆ ಮಾತನಾಡಲು ಬಿಡದೆ ನಿರ್ಬಂಧಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ನೆಂದು ನನ್ನ ಮಗಳಿಗೆ ಆರೋಪಿ ಗುರುಪ್ರಸಾದ್ ಆ ಬಾಡಿಗೆಯ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕಿರುಕುಳ ಕೊಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾನೆಂದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಾಯಿತು." This witness deposes further the owner of the premises had orally mentioned about the ill-treatment meted out by the accused. In the cross examination this witness in page-4 has specifically admitted "ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಮಗಳು ಶಾಲಿನಿ ಇದ್ದ ರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸೆರಿ". This witness admits victim had other friends, her classmates. This witness deposes on the date of incident when her daughter went missing, she was in the house only, this witness deposes on that day her daughter had mentioned she is going to shop nearby. In the entire cross examination of P.W.2 it has been specifically suggested that her daughter K L Shalini was in 21 SC.No.86/2016 her contact through mobile phone, this witness deposes one girl used to call to her daughter only but she was not knowing. This witness deposes the whereabouts of her daughter was not known to her even prior to the death, the Pw-2 denies the same. This witness in page-7 has specifically admitted the suggestion " ನನ್ನ ಮಗಳು ಶಾಲಿನಿ ಕಾಣೆಯಾದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಏನು ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ ".
16. In the evidence of the P.W.3 Smt.Hemalatha elder sister of the victim deposes that on 28.4.2013 her sister went missing, along with the accused. They searched but did not traced only after 2 years on 12.12.2015 at about 8.30 p.m accused had directly called this P.W.3 and informed about victim has died by way of hanging. In the cross examination of this witness, admits she came to know about Shalini is dead, and was very fond to her and victim was knowing her mobile number. This witness deposes she and her mother were using same mobile number. To the specific question that on 28.4.2013 whether the victim had informed before going this witness deposes she was not at all in the house but she 22 SC.No.86/2016 was in her matrimonial house in Mahalakshmi layout is the answer. This witness in page-4 last 3 lines deposes that they have warned the accused not to move behind the victim her sister Shalini. This witness admits in page-5 that she used to get phone call, but deposes she could not make out whether the person talking is her sister only and she deposes the person was speaking in English always she could not make out she is her sister only, this witness denies the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused. This witness admits in page-6 that victim used to call her mentioning she is friend of Shalini and this conversation with herself and victim was not reported either to her father or mother is admitted.
17. On going through the material on record, these three material witnesses have specifically deposes that the victim Shalini has been moved away from the Natural Residence as she was minor, as on the date of 28.4.2013 from her parents house to Tirupathi by the accused is established. In fact P.W.4 Investigating Officer who did conducted investigation at Tirupathi has specifically 23 SC.No.86/2016 deposed that one Chittor Sandhya had given complaint before him and he registered Cr.No.353/2015 on 13.12.2015 at about 8.30 a.m with regard to UDR. The dead body is of K.L.Shalini is an undisputed since even the Medical Officer who conducted the PM has been examined as P.W.10 Ram Mohan Sepuri who has deposed about conducting P.M on the deceased. This witness has admitted the ligature mark is appearing in 'U' shape, when they hang themselves only. This witness has admitted other than the ligature mark no other injuries was found. Therefore the death of the victim is not disputed however the victim was missing from Bengaluru Natural Residence is established as per the complaint made before the police, even though the panch witnesses of Ex.P.2 were not traced. The accused was accompanying the victim is established from the materials placed on record. Accordingly there are sufficient materials directly to show that accused was residing with the victim at Tirupathi is established. It is though not disputed specifically that the accused and victim were residing together but the victim was 24 SC.No.86/2016 prevented from having accused to her parents and her sister namely PWs.1 to 3 is also established by the prosecution. In fact the defence disputes that the victim whereabouts were known to the PWs.1 to 3, even though this witness defence is taken by the accused, the accused did not allowed the victim to come to Bengaluru as per the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.344 of IPC that victim was in confinement for a period more than 10 days is established. In fact the P.W.2 has given explanation in her evidence, that she came to know from the owner of the house where her daughter did hanged mentioned that accused used to lock her daughter in the house. However as the only person to give explanation in this regard is the accused who in his 313 statement failed to give any explanation in what manner or how the victim was with him at Tirupathi. Under such circumstances this court is of firm opinion that the entire ingredients of offence punishable u/s.344 of IPC are established. Accordingly, this Point No.2 is answered in the Affirmative. 25 SC.No.86/2016
18. POINT NO.3: In the case on hand, to prove the ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.306 of IPC, prosecution basically relies on the evidence of P.W.4 Eshwariah PSI who conducted inquest and Mahazar and also registered Cr.No.353/2015 in East police station of Tirupathi. The Investigating Officer has deposed that on 13.12.2015 at about 8.30 am as he was on duty he received written complaint from Chittor Sandya CW.9. He conducted inquest Mahazar as per sec.174 Cr.P.C. This witness has deposed he entered the room where deceased K.L.Shalini which is a rented premises by the accused, complainant and Sai Krishna brother of complainant were residing alongwith victim, the house is having door No.12-2-125/B, 2nd floor, Nimmakayala Street, Tirupathi Town, Andhra Pradesh. It has been returned in the complaint that K.L.Shalini was working in Sridhar Bedding House Shop in front of Vedam Mobile Shop. The accused was working in Kalyan Residency. As per the narration of the Investigating Officer he has received the complaint wherein it is mentioned on 11.12.2015 the victim went to their regular work, the brother of 26 SC.No.86/2016 complainant went to his native on 12.12.2015, victim accused and complainant went to their respective duties, when the complainant returned at about 9.00 p.m on 12.12.2015 she noticed it was bolted from inside, she called several times as there was no response she went aside and saw through the window and found somebody committed suicide by hanging to ceiling fan, she telephoned the same to accused. The accused came near the room he informed parents of victim. The said accused broke door and entered into the house and they found the victim. On the next day 13.12.2015 CWs.1 to 3 came there and the Investigating Officer conducted the inquest. The Investigating Officer deposed victim was found dead, body was lying position on the cot. He secured panchas and conducted inquest. He found ligature mark in the neck of the deceased. The Investigating Officer has found one death note on the TV Stand, he seized the same in presence of panchas. He recorded statements of the Lakshmana Murthy the present complainant, other three persons G.Krishnaiah, Venkateshaiah, Vishwanath, M.Meena. He took three photographs of the dead body 27 SC.No.86/2016 which are placed as Ex.P.3 to 5 herein. He sent the body for post mortem.
19. In the cross examination of this witness he deposes complaint has been given in handwritten form on the next day. He admits it is a UDR case and no any crime registered against any person. This witness denies other suggestions.
20. With regard to inquest Mahazar, no other witness came to be examined other than the PWs.1 to 3 who have deposed about the conduct of the inquest by the police at Tirupathi. The P.W.10 is the Medical Officer who conducted P.M on the dead body. In the case on hand, it is a clear case of the prosecution that victim committed suicide. The defence counsel submits though the victim had succumbed due to hanging there is no part played by the accused in driving the victim to commit suicide. The learned counsel for the accused argues even as per the evidence of P.W.4 Eshwaraiah the allegations made by the complainant is wife P.W.2 that owner of the premises informed about accused never used to send victim 28 SC.No.86/2016 outside is a falsehood since as per the evidence of P.W.4 Eshwaraiah. He has specifically deposed in his examination in chief at page-2 that on 11.12.2015 as usual victim, accused and even the complainant went to their respective work in Tirupathi and victim was working in Sridhar bedding house is an admitted fact. Therefore the allegations made by the parents of the victim that accused has driven the victim to commit suicide cannot be inferred and it has driven a UDR case as per the report made by P.W.4. In fact the P.W.7 has been cross examined by this accused counsel wherein he has specifically admitted about the nature of ligature mark found on the victim. Therefore there is no any material placed by the prosecution that the conduct of the accused has driven the victim to commit suicide is not established seems reasonable prayer. Under these circumstances, the proximity driving the victim to commit suicide as deposed by P.W.2 the material witness namely M.Meena whose statement has been recorded by the Investigating Officer was not at all available before this court. Moreover, even after issuing proclamation against the said complainant in 29 SC.No.86/2016 Cr.No.353/2015 registered in the East police station, Chitturu Sandya is not able to be secured inspite of issuance of proclamation. Under these circumstances, even by going through Ex.P.3 to 5 the inquest Mahazar Ex.P.20 and evidence of material witnesses, the evidence placed by the prosecution does not specifically points towards the satisfying all the ingredients punishable u/s.306 of IPC. Under these circumstances, this court is satisfied to answer Point No.3 for consideration in the Negative.
21. POINT NO.4: In the case on hand, to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, in the evidence of complainant, P.W.2 they have specifically deposed they are belonging to 'Bhovi community' schedule caste. In the cross examination of the complainant, P.W.1 dated:21.2.2018 he specifically admits he never mentioned his caste as 'Bhovi' as on giving complaint on 30.4.2013 as per Ex.P.9. Therefore the victim is belonging to schedule caste community is not known to the complainant is the 30 SC.No.86/2016 contention of the learned counsel for the accused. Under these circumstances, the accused had intention to commit offence against SC/ST Person knowing fully which are ingredient of offence punishable u/s.3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 having knowledge about victim being belonging to SC or ST has not been established by the prosecution by placing cogent, corroborative material evidence. The admissions given by P.W.1 in his cross examination definitely goes against the case of prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused by proving all the ingredients of alleged offence punishable u/s.3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 seems reasonable. Under such circumstances in fact the prosecution was able to prove that victim was belonging to schedule caste is an undisputed fact. However accused had knowledge about victim being belonging to schedule caste has not been brought in evidence is my firm view. In fact the school authority who issued the documents as prayed by the Investigating Officer namely P.W.5 Vasumathi the Headmistress of East West public school as on a request of the Investigating Officer she had handed over the 31 SC.No.86/2016 certified copies of Ex.P.11 the TC of the victim the Ex.P.10 the Admission register extract, clearly shows that the victim K.Shalini is belonging to schedule caste. In fact P.W.6 Dorai swamy the Ramanagara Grade 2 Tahsildar did issued caste certificates of K.Shalini is undisputed. As suggestion has been made that the Tahasildar has not made available report of Revenue Inspector alongwith request of the police.
22. The prosecution is able to place the evidence of P.W.7 Investigating Officer who received the records from the East police station of Tirupathi, the records of Cr.No.353/2015 as per Ex.P.14 and also received Ex.P.3 to 5 photographs and also got the custody of the accused as produced by the personnel who went to the police station brought the victim, P.M.Report and other documents and he did recorded statement of Sandya Sai Krishna and Vijayalakshmi at Tirupathi. In the cross examination this witness admits no one will be taken into custody unless there is suspicion or material and in the case on hand accused was not arrested immediately but this witness 32 SC.No.86/2016 deposes when they went to Tirupathi in a private car as accused was in the East police station of the Tirupathi, they have brought the accused to Bengaluru. The Investigating Officer who took further investigation and received the documents by recording voluntary statement of the accused has been examined as PW.8. This witness deposes about the part of investigation conducted by him. This witness in cross examination has specifically denied that they never enquired in Cr.No.122/2013 to trace the victim. This witness admits he did not issue any written notice to C.W.23, 24 to bring the accused from East police station to Nandini Layout police station. This witness denies as accused accompanied the police Personnel who went to East police station Tirupathi he arrested him after coming to Bengaluru is denied. This witness admits in Ex.P.1 the caste of the victim has not been specified therein is admitted. This witness admits in Ex.P.10 to 12 there is no any seal and signature but received the documents is not made is admitted. In fact the ACP who filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/s.3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 in his 33 SC.No.86/2016 cross examination at page-3 that "ತಹಶೀಲ್ದಾ ರರು ಜಾತಿ ಪ್ರಮಾಣಪತ್ರ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ತಹಶೀಲ್ದಾ ರವರಿಗೆ ಮನವಿ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿಲ್ಲ . ಅದೇ ರೀತಿ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಜಾತಿ ಪ್ರಮಾಣಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ತಹಶೀಲ್ದಾ ರರು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಮೃತ ಶಾಲಿನಿರವರ ತಂದೆ ನೀಡಿರುವ ಮರಹೇಳಿಕೆ ಆಧಾರದ ಮೇಲೆ ನಾನು ತನಿಖೆಯನ್ನು ಮುಂದುವರೆಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಮೃತಳ ಶಾಲಿನಿಯ ತಂದೆ ನೀಡಿರುವ ದೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಜಾತಿಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾಪ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂದಪಟ್ಟಂತೆ ಆಂದ್ರಪ್ರದೇಶದ ತಿರುಪತಿ ಪೂರ್ವ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಾಖಲಾಗಿರುವ ಯು.ಡಿ.ಆರ್ ಪ್ರಕರಣದ ಪ್ರ.ವ.ವರಧಿ ಶವ ಪರೀಕ್ಷಾ ವರದಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಡೆತ್ ನೋಟನ್ನು ನಾನು ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ . ನಾನು ಡೆತ್ ನೋಟನ್ನು ನೋಡಿಲ್ಲ . ನನ್ನ ಮುಂದೆ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ನೀಡಿರುವ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರ ಜಾತಿ ಪ್ರಮಾಣಪತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ನಾನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ . ಮೃತ ಶಾಲಿನಿಯವರ ತಂದೆ ಯವರ ಜಾತಿ ಪ್ರಮಾಣಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ . ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣಕ್ಕೂ ಮತ್ತು ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ ಯಾವುದೕ ಸಂಬಂದ ಇಲ್ಲ ದೇ ಇದ್ದ ರೂ ಕೂಡ ಆರೋಪಿ ವಿರುದ್ದ ಸುಳ್ಳು ದೋಷಾರೋಪಣಾ ಪತ್ರ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ ." Therefore Under such circumstances the ingredients of alleged offence u/s.3 (2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 is not made 34 SC.No.86/2016 out. Accordingly this court is satisfied to answer this point No.4 for consideration is in the negative.
23. POINT No.5:- In view of my foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(2) of
Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 344 of IPC.
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 306 of IPC & u/s Sec.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
To hear on Sentence.
(Dictated to the stenographer Grade I in open Court, transcript thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 3rd day of May, 2024).
(Rajesh Karnam.K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
35 SC.No.86/201603.5.2024:
TO HEAR ON SENTENCE:
The SBK for PR present. Heard on Sentence on both side.
The learned SPP submits accused is to be convicted to the maximum punishment provided under PIC as he has committed the offence which is unpardanable as per the context of society in general.
The learned counsel for the accused submits the accused is as on this day is aged about 27 years as on date of alleged offence i.e. on 28.4.2013 he was almost minor and as on date of alleged offence came to be reported on 13.12.2015 he was aged about approximately 19 years. He has attained majority. Therefore the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act as per sec.360 of Cr.P.C is to be given and necessary application will be filed to that effect is the prayer.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is satisfied to pass the following order:
ORDER
The accused for the offence
punishable u/s.344 of IPC is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period 36 SC.No.86/2016 of 3 years and shall also pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.
Further in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and on collecting the fine amount only accused is to be released.
The accused for the offence punishable u/s.366 of IPC is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/-.
Further in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and on collecting the fine amount only accused is to be released.
Both sentence shall run concurrently. The accused was in J.C from 13.12.2015 upto 20.4.2016. The period of imprisonment is to be given set off.
(Dictated to the stenographer Grade I in open court, transcription thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 3 rd day of May, 2024).
(Rajesh Karnam K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
37 SC.No.86/2016ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : K.C.Lakshman Murthy P.W.2 : Mangalagowri P.W.3 : Smt.Hemalatha P.W.4 : K.Eshwaraiah P.W.5 : Smt.Vasumathi P.W.6 : Doreswami P.W.7 : Basavaraj P.W.8 : Sadananda.M P.W.9 : Srikanth.S P.W.10 : Ram Moham Sepuri P.W.11 : Gopalaswamy.K P.W.12 : Annapurna P.W.13 : Arun R.Nayak
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a)(b) : Signature of PW1,3 Ex.P.2 : Panchanama Ex.P.2(a)(b)(c) : Signature Ex.P.3 to 5 : photos 38 SC.No.86/2016 Ex.P.6 : Further complaint Ex.P.6(a)(b) : Signature of PW1,8 Ex.P.7 : Adhar card of deceased Ex.P.8 : Adhar card of accused Ex.P.9 : Election voter ID Ex.P.10 : School document Ex.P.10(a) : Signature of PW5 Ex.P.11 : School register Ex.P.11(a) : Signature of PW5 Ex.P.12 : T.C. Ex.P.12(a) : Signature of PW5 Ex.P.13 : Caste report of complainant Ex.P.13(a) : Signature Ex.P.14 : Statement of P.W.7 Ex.P.14(a)(b) : Signature of PW7, 8 Ex.P.15 : Spot panchanama Ex.P.15(a)(b) : Signature of PW7, 8 Ex.P.16 : Accused statement Ex.P.16(a)(b) : Signature of PW7, A1 Ex.P.16 : Statement of P.W.7 Ex.P.16(a)(b) : Signature of PW7, 8 Ex.P.17 : PF No.97/2015 Ex.P.17(a)(b) : Signature 39 SC.No.86/2016 Ex.P.18 : Request letter Ex.P.18(a) : Signature of P.W.8 Ex.P.19 : FIR Ex.P.19(a) : Signature of P.W.9 Ex.P.20 : Post mortems certificate Ex.P.21 : Caste report Ex.P.21(a)(b) : Signature of PW.11, 13 Ex.P.22 : Report of Head Mistress Ex.P.22(a) : Signature of PW.12 Ex.P.23 : Admission register Ex.P.23(a) : Signature of PW.12 Ex.P.24 : FIR Ex.P.24(a) : Signature of PW.4 Ex.P.25 : Signature of PW.4 Ex.P.26 : Body panchanama Ex.P.27 : Order Ex.P.27(a) : Signature of PW.13
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL 40 SC.No.86/2016
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
NIL (Rajesh Karnam K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.