Bangalore District Court
Rajagopala Nagara P.S vs A1 Drakshayanamma on 20 November, 2024
KABC010193772016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 20th day of November 2024
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Mala N.D.,
BAL., LL.M.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.1004/2016
COMPLAINANT : State by Rajagopalanagara Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(By : Public prosecutor)
Vs.
ACCUSED : 1) Drakshayanamma,
W/o Gangappa,
Aged about 47 years.
2) Gangappa,
S/o late Gangadharaiah,
aged about 62 years.
Both are r/at No.69,
2 S.C. No.1004/2016
Opp: Raghavendra Swamy
Temple, Ashitha Provision
Stores, Laggere,
Bengaluru.
(By : Sri R.S.H.K., Advocate)
TABULATION OF EVENTS
1) Occurence of the offence : 10.09.2014 15.40 hours
and time to 15.09.2014 00.00
hours
2) Report of the offence date : 15.09.2014
and time 15.30 hours
3) Name of the complainant : Smt. Pushpa
4) Date of commencement of : 28.03.2017
trial
5) Date of closure of trial : 20.10.2023
6) Offences complained of : Sections 306 r/w Section
34 of IPC
7) Opinion of the Judge : Found not guilty
3 S.C. No.1004/2016
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Rajagopalanagar Police Station has submitted charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for an offence punishable u/s 306 r/w Sec.34 of IPC in Cr.No.479/2014 before the VII ACMM, Bengaluru.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
That deceased and CW.1 were husband and wife, they were residing in a rented house belonging to CW.14 situated at No.68, Ayyappa Building, 2 nd Cross, Rajeshwarinagara, Laggere, which was under the supervision of accused Nos.1 and 2. CW.14 is the daughter of accused Nos.1 and 2. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 used to pressurize the deceased to vacate the house and handover the possession, they used to pick up quarrel regularly in connection with rent by pressuring him either to give more rent or to vacate the rented premises, also 4 S.C. No.1004/2016 used to abuse him to commit suicide, if he did not do the same and also accused No.1 used to threaten the deceased stating that she will lodge a complaint against him on the allegation of rape on her before Rajagopalanagara police and send him to jail, thus, the deceased was instigated to commit suicide by accused persons. In this connection, on 10.09.2014 at about 3.45 p.m. deceased consumed pesticide in his residence as there was a galata by accused persons along with 10 other members, he was hospitalized in Sapthagiri Hospital on the same day and declared dead on 15.09.2014 at about 9.30 p.m., therefore, on the same day CW.1 Smt. Pushpa wife of deceased lodged complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2 on the allegation that her husband committed suicide due to the instigation of accused Nos.1 and 2. As such, based on the complaint of CW.1 criminal law set into motion against accused Nos.1 and 2, I.O. registered FIR and proceeded to the spot, 5 S.C. No.1004/2016 conducted spot mahazar and seizure mahazar, recorded the statements of accused persons and after recording the statement of witnesses and collecting post mortem report, I.O. filed charge sheet against the accused persons for an offence punishable u/s 306 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
3. Cognizance for the offences shown in the charge sheet was taken against accused persons by the learned Magistrate, thereafter a criminal case against accused persons was registered in C.C. No.3859/2016 on the file of VII ACMM, Bengaluru, since offence alleged against accused persons is exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the same was committed to the court of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru who in turn made over to this court.
4. After committal, the case is registered as S.C. No.1004/2016. Prosecution opened the case as required 6 S.C. No.1004/2016 u/s 226 of Cr.P.C. Heard the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2. No grounds made out for discharge of accused Nos.1 and 2, hence, charge against accused No.1 and 2 for an offence punishable u/s 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC was framed, its contents has been read over and explained to the accused Nos.1 and 2, they have denied the charges levelled against them and claims to be tried.
5. To prove the ingredients of the offences leveled against the accused persons, prosecution in all has examined 11 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.11 out of 18 witnesses cited in the charge sheet, got exhibited documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. In spite of giving sufficient opportunities CWs.2 to 5, 6, 8 and 14 are not secured, hence their evidence has been dropped by rejecting the prayer of prosecution and thereby prosecution closes its side evidence.
7 S.C. No.1004/2016
6. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have complied Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., they have denied all the incriminating material evidence appearing against them and not chosen to lead their side defence evidence.
7. Heard arguments on both the sides. Perused the materials on record.
8. The points that arise for my determination are:
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on 10.09.2014 deceased Ramesh husband of CW.1 being the tenant under CW.14 Smt. Vanajakshi, at the instigation of accused Nos.1 and 2 who were supervising the said house and also on their pressure to vacate the said house and to give higher rent and further due to the threat caused by accused No.1 that she will lodge a complaint on the allegation of rape against him in order to send him to jail, he was instigated either to pay rent or to commit suicide, hence at 8 S.C. No.1004/2016 about 3.45 p.m. deceased on the instigation of accused Nos.1 and 2 deceased consumed pesticides in his rented house, he was taken to hospital for treatment and the same was not successful, hence died on 15.09.2014 at about 9.45 p.m. and thereby accused Nos.1 and 2 committed an offence of abetting the deceased to commit suicide which is punishable u/s 306 r/w Section 34 of the IPC?
2) What Order ?
9. On appreciation of evidence, documents and for the foregoing reasons, 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
10. POINT NO.1: It is the specific case of the
prosecution that, deceased Ramesh and CW.1 Pushpa
being married couple were residing in a rented house of CW.14 Smt. Vanajakshi who is the daughter of accused 9 S.C. No.1004/2016 Nos.1 and 2. It is also the case of the prosecution that CW.14 allowed her parents to supervise the rented house i.e., to say to collect the rents. It is the specific allegation that the accused persons were in the habit of harassing the deceased under the pretext of demanding rent by forcing him either to pay higher rent or to vacate the house premises. It is alleged in the complaint that, accused used to bring unknown persons to pressurize the deceased to vacate the house and also to warn him. Further, there is a specific accusation against the accused No.1 that she being the wife of accused No.2 used to threaten the deceased that she will lodge a false complaint against the deceased by making allegation of rape against him. Similar incident was occurred on 10.09.2014 i.e., to say accused Nos.1 and 2 gathered with 10 other unknown persons and started abusing the deceased by demanding him to vacate the said rented premises. Therefore, being insulted and at the 10 S.C. No.1004/2016 instigation of accused Nos.1 and 2 deceased consumed pesticides, which took his life after 5 days of the incident.
11. To constitute an offence u/s 306 of IPC, firstly there must be an abetment i.e., instigation, encouragement or aid to commit suicide; secondly; there must be intentional act of the accused, actions must have been intentional driving the victim to commit suicide; thirdly; casual link; a direct connection between the accused actions and victims suicide; the victim has committed suicide. Under the circumstances, essential ingredients are that the accused must have played active role in encouraging or aiding the suicide, action must have been intended to facilitate or provoke the suicide and the victim decisions to commit suicide must have been influenced by the accused act.
11 S.C. No.1004/2016
12. In this back ground it is necessary to go through the available evidence before this court.
13. In order to bring home the guilt of accused persons, prosecution has placed evidence of PW.2 / complainant, examined investigation officer at PW.1, medical officers are examined as PW.3 and PW.4, inquest mahazar witnesses Udaykumar and Siddagangaiah are examined as PW.5 and PW.6, relatives of deceased Suresh and Lakshmamma are examined as PW.7 and PW.8, one Kumar and Ambarish stated to be the friends of deceased are examined as PW.9 and PW.10, FSL officer is examined as PW.11 and the prosecution also placed reliance on the documents at Exs.P.1 to P.14. Ex.P.10 is the complaint, Exs.P.2 and P.3 are FIR and spot mahazar, Exs.P.5 and P.6 are the inquest and post mortem report, FSL report is marked at Ex.P.9 and other documents at Ex.P.14. 12 S.C. No.1004/2016
14. Complainant Smt. Pushpa wife of deceased is examined as PW.2. She has deposed that herself and her husband deceased Ramesh were tenant in a house situated behind the Andanappa Building, Laggere, they were in the said rented house from past three years. Accused Nos.1 and 2 used to pick up quarrel if they failed to pay the rent, they used to bring rowdies in order to threaten them to vacate the said house, accused No.1 Drakshayanamma used to threaten the deceased that she will lodge false rape case against him, he was subjected to abuse by accused persons by instigating him either to evict the house or to commit suicide. Thus, she has stated that because of the insult and also threat to foist a false case against her husband, on 10.09.2014 at about 3.45 p.m. her husband committed suicide by consuming pesticide. 13 S.C. No.1004/2016
15. It is further deposed that on the said day also accused Nos.1 and 2 had quarreled with the deceased and they had been to Rajagopalanagara police station to lodge complaint against him on the allegation of rape said to have been committed on accused No.1, therefore she hospitalised her husband in the Sapthagiri Hospital, after 4 days he expired i.e., on 15.09.2014, she identified her signature in the complaint and also spoken about drawing up of mahazar as per Ex.P.3. Thus, PW.2 has stated that her husband committed suicide because of the instigation and abetment of accused Nos.1 and 2.
16. During the course of cross-examination it is noticed that, PW.2 and her husband being married couple were residing in the house of CW.4 Smt. Vanajakshi as tenants from 2012 till 2014. accused were the parents of CW.14, they were paying monthly rent of Rs.2,500/-. From the cross-examination of PW.2 it can be seen that, no 14 S.C. No.1004/2016 complaints were lodged as against these accused persons before any police station alleging that they used to bring rowdies to vacate herself and her husband and also no case was lodged against accused No.1 as she allegedly used to pose threat of lodging false rape case against the deceased . It is further noticed that, on 10.09.2014 the deceased was taken to hospital after consumption of pesticides, she denied the suggestion of the defence counsel that her husband was taken to hospital by accused No.2 himself and also denied the suggestion of the defence that the deceased being an alcoholic was not taking care of herself and her children and due to family disturbance deceased committed suicide.
17. Investigation officer is examined as PW.1, he has deposed that on 15.09.2014 PW.2 - Smt. Pushpa came to the police station and lodged complaint against accused persons. Therefore, he registered FIR as per Ex.P.2 and 15 S.C. No.1004/2016 visited the place of incident, conducted spot mahazar as per Ex.P.3 on the same day at about 4.30 to 5.30 p.m. Thereafter, on 16.09.2014 he visited the Sapthagiri Hospital conducted inquest panchanama in the presence of CW.7 to CW.9 by issuing them notices and drawn inquest mahazar as per Ex.P.5. Thereafter, forwarded the dead body for post mortem and further deposed about collecting of post mortem report as per Ex.P.6, recorded the statement of CW.14 - Vanajakshi, also collected documents regarding the ownership of said House of CW.14, recorded the voluntary statements of accused and statements of other witnesses i.e., CW.4 to CW.6. He has also deposed regarding collection of viscera and forwarding it to FSL and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused persons, he identified the accused before the court. In the cross-examination, this I.O. has admitted that deceased Ramesh had consumed pesticides on 10.09.2014 16 S.C. No.1004/2016 itself and he has admitted that he has has not received any intimation from the hospital with respect to admission of the deceased as medico-legal case. It is further deposed by the I.O. that while conducting spot mahazar he had not traced the poison bottle. This witness has pleaded his ignorance about registration of criminal case against the deceased and CW.2 by accused No.2 on 10.09.2014 by stating that he had not noticed the said fact during his investigation and denied the suggestion of the defence counsel that there is no instigation or abetment to the deceased to commit suicide.
18. PW.3 is Dr Sujatha P.L., she has spoken regarding conducting of post mortem, wherein she has spoken regarding tracing of yellow liquid substance in the chest, stomach portion and intestine and white liquid substance in the lungs portion and after collecting the same sent to the investigation officer with a suggestion to 17 S.C. No.1004/2016 refer the same to the FSL. Since, the FSL report was not returned she has not given her opinion at the time of deposing this evidence.
19. Another medical officer Smt. Bhavani is examined as PW.4, she has spoken regarding admission of deceased Ramesh on 10.09.2014 at about 3.30 p.m. on the back ground of consumption of poison as an out-patient , she has deposed that she has given first aid treatment to the deceased and send him to the ICU and thereafter since the deceased died on 15.09.2014, she gave death intimation to the Soladevanahalli police station, accordingly, she identified the death intimation as Ex.P.11. In her cross- examination, she has pleaded her ignorance as to state who has brought the deceased to the hospital.
20. Two inquest mahazar witnesses are examined as PW.5 and PW.6, they are relatives of the deceased Ranesh. 18 S.C. No.1004/2016 They have identified their signatures in the inquest mahazar which is marked at Ex.P.5 by stating that they have affixed their signatures in the Sapthagiri Hospital when they had gone to bring the dead body of the deceased. At the same time, both have pleaded ignorance about contents of inquest mahazar. Though, these witnesses have been subjected to cross-examination, nothing substantial has been elicited from the cross-examination as they have denied to state that they were present inside the mortuary at the time of conducting inquest.
21. PW.7 - Suresh is younger brother of deceased Ramesh, examined as PW.7. In his chief examination he has deposed that, his brother had called him over phone and informed him that his house owners are harassing him and on the same day he once again called him and informed that there is no problem. Thereafter, on the same day in between 5 - 6 p.m. he received a phone call from the 19 S.C. No.1004/2016 deceased stating that the owner of the house had gathered few people and making galata outside the house, as such he has remained inside the house by locking it. Therefore, he rushed to the deceased's house, by that time he had consumed poison and he was taken to Sanjeevini Hospital of Jalahalli Cross. It is further deposed by this witness that, he has learnt about the death note written by his brother and he could not trace the same and thus he deposes about the death of his brother. He has further stated that he might have given the statement before the police stating that the accused are the reasons for the death of his brother.
22. In his cross-examination he pleaded his ignorance about the contents of statement stated to have been given by him before the police. It is admitted by this witness that he has not stated before the police with regard to phone call received by him from his brother. It can be 20 S.C. No.1004/2016 noticed that this witness is unaware of the owner of the house in which deceased and CW.1 were residing as tenants. It could be noticed from the cross-examination of this PW.7 that deceased Ramesh and his wife i.e., CW.1 were living separately and his sister-in-law i.e., CW.1 used to visit his mother's house occasionally. This witness has admitted that when he had visited the deceased's house he had noticed that his brother deceased Ramesh was in cordial relationship with the owner. Further, this witness has deposed that he came to know about the death note from his sister-in-law and when he received the phone call from his brother, he heard door knocking sound.
23. On perusal of the statement of this witness, it can be noticed that there are many improvements in his evidence when compared to the statement. The fact of death note has been introduced in the evidence for the first time. It can also be seen that this witness has not stated 21 S.C. No.1004/2016 anything before the police about hearing the door knocking sound when his brother had called him on the day of consuming the poison. It can be seen that it is not at all case of the prosecution that the complainant had written death note by stating the reason of his suicide.
24. PW.8 - Smt. Lakshmamma is the mother of the deceased. From the evidence of this witness it can be seen that deceased had called her alleging about the galata said to have been caused by the accused persons by posing threat on him by gathering few persons in front of his house and the said noise came to be witnessed through his another son Suresh. Therefore, she rushed to Sanjeevini Hospital to see her son, where he had no conscious, thereafter he was shifted to Saptagiri Hospital and there she came to know that due to the galata took place between her son and accused persons, deceased consumed poison, she denied her statement having given before the police. 22 S.C. No.1004/2016
25. In her cross-examination it can be noticed that mother of the deceased sells flowers and she came to know about the committal of suicide by the complainant through her daughter-in-law. In the cross-examination of the prosecution also she failed to state that she has given statement before the police. In her cross-examination this witness has admitted that accused had helped deceased and CW.1 and accused were treating them nicely. From the evidence of mother of the deceased it can be seen that she was residing separately and not with the deceased and CW.1. It is also stated by this witness that, there was no compatibility among the couple i.e., deceased and CW.1, they often used to quarrel each other. She denied the suggestion of the defence counsel that accused were not the reason for committing suicide by the deceased. 23 S.C. No.1004/2016
26. PW.9 is one Kumar, he is the relative of deceased Ramesh, he has deposed about visiting the hospital on hearing the suicide news of the deceased. He has denied his statement before the police, he was subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution and nothing substantial has been elicited from his cross- examination. Further, in the cross-examination of the defence counsel, this witness has stated that he is not aware of the reason for suicide by the deceased .
27. Another witness Ambarish is examined as PW.10, he is also a relative of the deceased. He has pleaded his ignorance about the reason for committing suicide by the deceased, he denied the statement given before the police, though he was subjected for cross-examination by the prosecution nothing substantial has been elicited in his cross-examination.
24 S.C. No.1004/2016
28. PW.11 - Dr Gundamma Patil is the Assistant Director, Toxicology Section of FSL, Bellary. She has deposed about cross-examination of the articles which were collected from the portion of stomach, small intestine, liver, kidney, blood etc. She has opined after the examination of samples sent to her, as "residues of volatile poisons, pesticides, barbiturates, benzodiazepine group of drugs, toxic metal ions and anions were not detected in all the above". The defence counsel has denied the report of the FSL as false. This witness has denied the suggestion of the defence that report given by the author is false.
29. On over all consideration of all the witnesses, the fact of suicide committed by the deceased cannot be disputed. Even the forensic reports establishes the availability of poisonous contents in the body of the deceased Ramesh. As per the case of the prosecution 25 S.C. No.1004/2016 deceased and CW.1 were living in the house of CW.14 Vanajakshamma which was supervised by her parents i.e., accused Nos.1 and 2.
30. It is the canvas of the prosecution that the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution by stating that her husband committed suicide because of the abetment caused by accused No.1 and also repose of the threat caused by accused No.1 about foisting of false case of rape against him. It is the further canvas of the prosecution that the evidence of complainant is supported by the evidence of brother and mother of the deceased who were examined as PW.7 and PW.8.
31. Admittedly, the deceased had consumed poison i.e., pesticides on 10.09.2014 he was taken to the hospital on the same day.
26 S.C. No.1004/2016
32. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 10.09.2014 accused Nos.1 and 2 had gathered some people in front of the house of deceased and CW.1, caused galata and warned deceased to vacate the house or to pay higher rent or to die, by threatening him that a false rape case would be foist against him, if that were to be the situation what prevented the complainant to lodge complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2 on the very same day of alleged galata has not been satisfactorily explained. The complainant has lodged complaint only after the death of the deceased i.e., on 15.09.2014. In addition from the evidence of complainant i.e., PW.2 it can be noticed that the accused Nos.1 and 2 often used to make galata by demanding rent and also pressurizing the deceased to vacate the house premises. However, no complaint has been registered against the accused persons either by the deceased or by the complainant in connection with the alleged harassment 27 S.C. No.1004/2016 said to have been caused by the accused persons. CW.4 to CW.6 were cited as eye witnesses to the alleged incident and they have not been secured before this court in support of prosecution case.
33. From the evidence of mother and brother of deceased, it can be seen that there is no compatibility amongst the deceased and the CW.1 and they were residing separately. However, it is the case of the prosecution that this complainant and deceased were residing together in the rented premises. Except this complainant, other mahazar witnesses have not been secured before this court in support of drawing up of spot mahazar on 15.09.2014. From the evidence of this complainant it can be noticed that no complaints have been lodged by herself or by her deceased husband with respect to the harassment said to have been caused by the accused persons. The inquest mahazar witnesses who are the 28 S.C. No.1004/2016 relatives of the deceased have shown hostile attitude and pleaded ignorance about the contents of inquest.
34. The brother and mother of the deceased who are cited as circumstantial witnesses, though have spoken regarding the suicide committed by the deceased, from their evidence it can be gathered that they are hear-say witnesses, they have learnt about the incident only through the wife of the deceased i.e., complainant. The evidence of these two witnesses are entirely contradictory to their own statement given before the police. The brother of the deceased i.e., CW.7 Suresh have spoken about the death note which is not at all the case of the prosecution and thus he brought improvement in the case of the prosecution which is not admissible in the eye of law. Similar is the case of evidence of mother of the deceased i.e., PW.8.
29 S.C. No.1004/2016
35. From the evidence of mother and brother of the deceased no corroborative and supportive and incriminating materials are forthcoming so as to say that accused Nos.1 and 2 have instigated or abetted the deceased to drive him to take away his life by committing suicide. Even the house owner i.e., Smt. Vanajakshamma
- CW.14 has not been secured before this court. That apart the spot mahazar witnesses i.e., CW.2 and CW.3 have remained absent before this court. The other witnesses were medical officers, they have spoken regarding examination of substance found in the dead body of the deceased. The evidence of I.O. is with respect to the entire investigation which is formal as he failed to establish drawing up of spot mahazar through the evidence of independent witnesses.
30 S.C. No.1004/2016
36. However, the fact of death of deceased is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that he committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance i.e., pesticides. At the same time, the evidence of PW.1 is not sufficient to hold that due to the instigating conduct of the accused Nos.1 and 2 her husband deceased Ramesh committed suicide. Introduction of the death note by the brother of the deceased is an improvement in the case of prosecution which is not admissible under law. Under such circumstances, the evidence of medical officer as well as I.O. appears to be formal, which is not helpful to bring home the guilt of the accused persons.
37. In this context, it is profitable to refer the latest decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case of Sri.V.V. Singara Velu and another V/s. The State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.3095/2022, wherein the Hon'ble court pleased to observe that; 31 S.C. No.1004/2016
"9. "Abetment" involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. To proceed against any person for the offence under section 306 of I.P.C., it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide." ............
"Mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide."
38. The accused has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in Crl.A.No.276/2023 dated 07.09.2023, wherein the Hon'ble court pleased to observe that;
"Having advanced money to the deceased the appellant/accused have uttered some abuse words and threatened him to take his life; but that by itself is 32 S.C. No.1004/2016 not sufficient to constitute the offence under section 306 of I.P.C."
The proposition of law is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Similar to the facts of the cited decision, in the present case also, the accused being landlord directed the tenants including deceased to vacate the premises, that itself cannot be taken as instigation sufficient to commit suicide.
39. From over all consideration of evidence on record, it is obvious that formal evidence of I.O. none of the witnesses including the wife, brother and mother of the deceased have specifically stated regarding the instigation or abetment that led to the committing of suicide by the deceased Ramesh. From the aforequoted decision it can be seen that demanding of rent does not amount to instigation to commit suicide. Therefore, alleged reason for suicide and instigation by the accused so as to drive the deceased to 33 S.C. No.1004/2016 commit suicide is not at all proved. The demand for rent or directing the tenant to vacate the premises by the landlord or supervisor cannot be taken as instigation or provocation sufficient to drive the tenant to kill himself.
40. From the discussion on the above paras, this court is of the opinion that, prosecution has not placed sufficient evidence to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused Nos.1 and 2 instigated the deceased Ramesh and at the instigation of the accused Nos.1 and 2 on 10.09.2014 at about 3.45 p.m., in the house of CW.14 deceased being a tenant to kill himself committed an offence of suicide u/s 306 of IPC. As such, the prosecution failed to establish his case with cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence. From the evidence brought on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ingredients of Section 306 of I.P.C. is not established. 34 S.C. No.1004/2016 Accordingly, point No.1 under consideration is answered in the Negative.
41. POINT NO.2: In view of the above finding on point No.1, this court is of the opinion that, the evidence on record is grossly insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the aforementioned offence. Hence, they are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this court proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Invoking provision u/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 306 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled.
Bail bonds and surety bonds executed by accused Nos.1 and 2 u/s 35 S.C. No.1004/2016 437-A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
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 Stenographer Grade-I / Sr. Sheristedar, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this 20th day of November, 2024) (MALA N.D.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
36 S.C. No.1004/2016ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:
PW.1 : Vaseemulla PW.2 : Pushpa PW.3 : Dr Sujatha P.L. PW.4 : Dr Bhavani PW.5 : Udayakumara PW.6 : Siddagangaiah PW.7 : Suresh PW.8 : Lakshmamma PW.9 : Kumara PW.10 : Ambareesha PW.11 : Dr Gundamma Patil II. For Defence:- -Nil-
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 : True copy of Complaint Exs.P.1(a) : Signature 37 S.C. No.1004/2016 Ex.P.2 : FIR Ex.P.2(a) : Signature Ex.P.3 : Mahazar Ex.P.3(a) : Signature Ex.P.4 : Form 144 Notice Ex.P.4(a) : Signature Ex.P.5 : Inquest mahazar Ex.P.5(a) : Signature Ex.P.6 : Post mortem report Ex.P.6(a) : Signature Ex.P.7 : Copy of sale deed Ex.P.7(a) : Signature Ex.P.8 : Endorsement Ex.P.9 : FSL report Ex.P.9(a) : Signature Ex.P.10 : Complaint Ex.P.10(a) : Signature Ex.P.11 : Death note intimation Ex.P.11(a) : Signature Exs.P.12 : Portions of statements to P.14 38 S.C. No.1004/2016 IV. For Defence side:- -Nil- V. List of material objects marked:- --- NIL --- LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.