Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka By; vs Smt.Lakshmi W/O Mani on 7 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY. (CCH-69)
Dated this the 7th day of September, 2015
:PRESENT:
Sri.Shivaji Anant Nalawade, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl)
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
SESSION CASE No.420/2013
COMPLAINANT : State of Karnataka by;
Srirampura Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
- Vs -
ACCUSED : Smt.Lakshmi W/o Mani,
Aged about 27 years,
Residing at No.131, 2nd Main,
2nd Cross, Rasaldar Street,
Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.P.R.Bhat, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of offence 07-10-2012
2. Date of report of occurrence 08-10-2012
3. Date of arrest of accused 08-10-2012
Date of release of accused 22-10-2012
Period undergone in custody 14 Days
4. Date of commencement of evidence 11-03-2014
5. Date of closing of evidence 08-06-2015
6. Name of the complainant Smt.Parvathi
7. Offences complained of Sec.306 of I.P.C.
8. Opinion of the Judge As per the final order
9. Order of sentence Accused is convicted
2 S.C.No.420/2013
JUDGMENT
This case is committed by the VII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore City, to the Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore on the ground that offence punishable under Sec.306 of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions.
2. The Police Inspector of Srirampura Police Station has filed charge-sheet against accused alleging that accused has committed the offence under Sec.306 of IPC arising out of Srirampura Police Station in Crime No.159/2012.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:
(a) It is the case of the Prosecution that, accused-
Lakshmi on 07-10-2012 at 6.30 p.m. went to the house of CW.1-Smt.Parvathi situated in the 5th Cross, Gowtham Nagara, Srirampura, Bengaluru and told her that Preetha D/o Smt.Pongadi is her relative and on 06-10-2012 at 7.30 p.m., the said Preetha had came to the house of CW.1 and thereafter Preetha went away with some boy by wearing the dress of daughter of CW.1 one Devika Rani @ Monika. Further accused told CW.1 that your daughter Devika Rani is responsible for the same and when CW.1 enquired her daughter Devika Rani, she told that she does not know 3 S.C.No.420/2013 anything, for that accused abused Devika Rani in filthy language and threatened her saying that she will not leave the family members of Devika Rani, she will bring them on street. Further accused assaulted Devika Rani with hands and told her to go anywhere and die and in view of that Devika Rani at 9.30 p.m. consumed poison used for killing the bed bugs and committed suicide. The said act of the accused abated Devika Rani to commit suicide and thereby accused has committed the offence under Sec.306 of I.P.C.
(b) CW.18 who is the Police Sub-Inspector of Srirampura Police Station came to know from ASI of his Police Station that Devika Rani has committed suicide by taking poison, on the same day CW.1 came to the Police Station at 6.15 a.m. and submitted oral complaint before CW.18. CW.18 has obtained oral complaint and registered case in Crime No.159/2012 and submitted FIR to the court. On the same day CW.18 came to the spot, called CW.8 and 9 Panchas and drawn Spot Mahazar on the spot shown by CW.2 from 9.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. thereafter CW.18 came to K.C.General Hospital, called CW.4 to 8-Panchas and drawn Inquest Mahazar of the dead body belongs to Devika Rani. CW.18 at the time of Inquest Mahazar recorded statements of CW.2 and 4 S.C.No.420/2013 3 thereafter CW.18 sent the dead body for Postmortem. CW.18 has directed his officials to catch-hold the accused. Lady ASI one Lakshmi catch-hold the accused and produced before CW.18, CW.18 has arrested the accused and recorded her voluntary statement thereafter CW.18 has entrusted the accused to judicial custody. CW.15 has collected the clothes, viscera and blood of deceased from the Medical Officer who has conducted Postmortem and produced before CW.18. CW.18 has called CW.10 and 11-Panchas and seized the same by drawing Mahazar as per Ex.P7. Thereafter, CW.18 has subjected the properties under P.F. CW.18 has sent the viscera, blood and other articles to FSL for examination through CW.15. CW.18 has handed-over the dead body to CW.2 and obtained the receipt. On 04-01-2013, CW.18 has obtained the Postmortem Report and included the same in the file. On 29-12-2012, CW.18 has recorded the further statement of CW.1, on the same day recorded the statements of CW.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 17. On 29-12-2012 obtained FSL Report thereafter CW.18 has obtained the MLC Extract from K.C.General Hospital and as the investigation is completed, filed the charge-sheet against the accused. 5 S.C.No.420/2013
4. After filing the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer, VII ACMM Court has taken cognizance and registered the case in C.C.2055/2013 against the accused for the offence under Sec.306 of I.P.C. Thereafter, VII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City has secured presence of accused and furnished charge-sheet copies to her as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, VII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has committed the case against the accused before the Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore and that was registered as S.C.420/2013 and made-over to this court for disposal according to law, as the offence alleged are triable by the Sessions Court.
5. After receipt of the papers this court has secured the presence of accused and enlarged accused on bail thereafter heard the learned counsel for accused and learned Public Prosecutor for State on charge to be framed. Charge under section under Sec.240 of Cr.P.C. framed against the accused for the offence under Sec.306 of IPC and read-over to the accused in the open court and accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.
6 S.C.No.420/2013
6. Thereafter, Prosecution has called upon to prove the guilt of the accused by examining the Prosecution witnesses. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt in all examined 11 witnesses as PW.1 to 11, got marked 19 documents as per Ex.P1 to 19 and marked 3 material objects as MO.1 to 3 and closed its side. Thereafter accused is examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. to enable her to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the prosecution evidence. Accused denied the statement in toto and further stated that she has no defence evidence and she has nothing to say, thereafter the case is posted for arguments.
7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused and learned Public Prosecutor for state in length.
8. The points that arise for my determination are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused on 07-10-2012 at 6.30 p.m. went to the house of CW.1-
Smt.Parvathi situated in 5th Cross, Gowtham Nagara, Srirampura and told her that Preetha D/o Smt.Pongadi is her relative and on 06-10- 2012 at 7.30 p.m. said Preetha had came to the house of CW.1 and thereafter Preetha went 7 S.C.No.420/2013 away with some boy by wearing the dress of the daughter of CW.1 one Devika Rani @ Monika and further accused told that CW.1 that your daughter Devika Rani is responsible for the same and when CW.1 enquired her daughter Devika Rani she told that she does not know anything, for that accused abused Devika Rani in filthy language and threatened saying that she will not leave the family members of Devika Rani, she will bring them on street and further accused assaulted Devika Rani with hands and told her to go any where and die and in view of that Devika Rani at 9.30 p.m. on the same day consumed the poison used for killing the bed bugs and committed suicide and the said act of the accused abated Devika Rani to commit suicide and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.306 of IPC?
2. What order?
9. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the AFFIRMATIVE;
Point No.2 : As per final order
For the following;
REASONS
10. POINT No.1: It is the case of the prosecution
that the accused has committed the offences under Sec.306 of 8 S.C.No.420/2013 I.P.C. and in order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution in all examined 11 witnesses and they are; PW.1- Smt.Parvathi wife of Rajendra Prasad-complainant, PW.2- Rajendra Prasad son of Janaki Ram-father of the deceased, PW.3-Bhaskar son of Mani-eye witness, PW.4-Sudha wife of Rajkumar-eye witness, PW.5-Nagaraj son of Raman-Pancha on Ex.P7 Mahazar, PW.6-Smt.Radha wife of Madesh-WPC, PW.7- M.D.Shivashankarappa son of Dundaiah-Police Constable, PW.8-Ravi C Ukkunda son of Chennabasappa-Investigating Officer/Police Sub-Inspector, PW.9-Dr.C.N.Sumangala wife of Ramesh-Lady Medical Officer, PW.10-Dr.Gundamma Patil wife of Shivaputra-Scientific Officer, PW.11-Smt.Krishnaveni wife of Venkatesh-eye witness.
11. The prosecution in order to prove guilt of the accused in all got marked 19 documents and they are; Ex.P1- Complaint, Ex.P2-Three photos, Ex.P3-Spot Mahazar, Ex.P4- Receipt given for handing over the dead body, Ex.P5-Portion of statement of PW.2, Ex.P6-Portion of statement of PW.4, Ex.P7- Seizure Mahazar for seizure of clothes, viscera and blood of deceased, Ex.P8-Report submitted by PW.6 to Police Sub- Inspector, Ex.P9-Report submitted by PW.7 to Police Sub- Inspector, Ex.P10-FIR, Ex.P11-Form No.146(i), Ex.P12-Form 9 S.C.No.420/2013 No.146(ii), Ex.P13-P.F.No.89/2012, Ex.P14-Postmortem Report, Ex.P15-FSL Report, Ex.P16-MLC Extract, Ex.P17- Report given by Lady ASI to Police Sub-Inspector, Ex.P18- Notice given to the Panchas for Inquest Mahazar, Ex.P19- Portion of statement of PW.11.
12. Prosecution has marked three materials objects and they are; MO.1-Nighty, MO.2-Underwear, MO.3-Shimmy cloth.
13. Perusal of complaint which is at Ex.P1 discloses that incident took-place on 07-10-2012 at 10.30 p.m. and complainant has lodged the complaint before the Investigating Officer on 08-10-2012 at 06.15 a.m. i.e., within 9 hours from the alleged incident. So there is no abnormal delay on the part of the complainant in lodging the complaint.
14. Perusal of the FIR which is at Ex.P10 discloses that Police have submitted FIR to the court on 08-10-2012 at 2.40 p.m. i.e., within 9 hours from the registration of the case, so there is no abnormal delay on the part of the Police in submitted FIR to the court.
15. In the present case accused has not disputed the homicidal death of Devika Rani. Further accused has not disputed that Devika Rani has taken poison and due to taking 10 S.C.No.420/2013 of the poison she died. Further accused has not disputed that on 06-10-2012 at 7.30 p.m., the daughter of Smt.Pongadi one Preetha came to the house of CW.1 and thereafter Preetha went away with some boy by wearing the dress of daughter of CW.1 one Devika Rani. Further accused has not disputed that, on 07-10-2012 Devika Rani has taken poison and she died. It is the specific case of the accused that, Devika Rani was in love with one boy who was working in the Card Board Factory where Devika Rani was working. The father and mother of Devika Rani have opposed for the same and they have stopped Devika Rani to go for the work at Card Board Factory, so Devika Rani was depressed and since 15 days earlier to the incident Devika Rani was not attending the work, she was depressed so she has taken poison and committed suicide. It is the case of accused that she went to see Devika Rani's dead body at Victoria Hospital and she told CW.1 that if they agreed for the marriage of Devika Rani with the person whom she was loving, the incident would not have happened and for that complainant and her husband have cooked false story and lodged false complaint against her. Complainant and her husband have denied that their daughter Devika Rani was in love with a boy who was working in the Card Board Factory 11 S.C.No.420/2013 where Devika Rani was working. Further complainant and her husband have disputed that as they have opposed for the love affairs, they have stopped Devika Rani from working at Card Board Factory, so she was stopped to go for work since 15 days earlier to the alleged incident. Further the complainant and her husband have specifically stated that as their daughter was not keeping well, she was not attending the work. Accused has taken the specific defence that, Devika Rani was depressed as her parents have opposed her love affair with a boy who was working at Card Board Factory, where Devika Rani was working and for that reason Devika Rani has taken poison and committed suicide.
16. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined PW.1 and PW.1 is the mother of deceased Devika Rani and she in her evidence stated that on 07-10- 2012 her daughter has taken poison and committed suicide and since 15 days earlier to the incident her daughter was not going to work. Further PW.1 has stated that she know one Pongadi and the house of the Pongadi is situated some distance away from her house. The daughter of Pongadi one Preetha is her daughter's friend and she use to come to their house. On 06-10-2012, Preetha came to their house and met 12 S.C.No.420/2013 with her daughter Devika Rani and she has taken clothes belongs to her daughter and went away. On the second day, she came to know that Preetha went with some boy. On that day at 7.00 p.m., Pongadi and accused-Lakshmi who is the relative of Pongadi came to her house, accused told her daughter Devika Rani that you know that with whom Preetha went and you also know her phone number and asked her to give the phone number, for that Devika Rani told that she is not knowing with whom Preetha went and also she is not having the number, for that the accused Lakshmi abused Devika Rani in filthy language and told Devika Rani that she will not leave her and her family members and told that she will bring them on street and accused assaulted Devika Rani with hands, she has taken her daughter in the house, accused has also abused her, accused has assaulted Devika Rani saying in Kannada that;
¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄÄAqÉ, PÀAwæ ªÀÄÄAqÉ, ¨ÉêÀ¹ð ªÀÄÄAqÉ CAvɯÁè ¨ÉÊzÀ¼ÀÄ.
17. Further PW.1 has stated that her daughter told her that accused has abused her and given threat to her and insulted her in the public so she will not live, she told her daughter not to speak such things, everything will be ok and on that day at 9.30 p.m., her daughter has received one phone 13 S.C.No.420/2013 message and she talked thereafter she called her daughter for meals, she was washing the mouth and she smelled the bed bug poison, she asked her daughter Devika Rani and she came to know that her daughter has taken the poison thereafter she and her husband have taken her daughter to K.C.General Hospital and at 10.30 p.m. her daughter died and her daughter died as she was taken the bed bug poison. As the accused came to their house and abused her daughter in front of their house in public place and told her daughter that she will bring her and her parents on street and assaulted her, her daughter has taken the poison and died and accused has abated her daughter for committing suicide. She has lodged the complaint and identified the same as Ex.P1. The counsel for the accused has cross-examined this witness and in the cross- examination this witness has stated that her daughter was not attending to her working as she was having head ache. The counsel for the accused has suggested to this witness that her daughter Devika Rani was having love affairs with a boy where she was working and they have opposed for the same and this witness has denied the said suggestion. Further counsel for the accused has suggested to this witness that as they have opposed for the love affairs of Devika Rani, she was depressed 14 S.C.No.420/2013 and she has taken the poison and this witness has denied the same. Further the counsel for the accused has suggested to this witness as under;
"£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ PÉ.¹.d£ÀgÀ¯ï D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ¥ÉÇAUÀr §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî. D D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è ¥ÉÇAUÀrAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ D ¦æÃw¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ£À eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è zÉëPÁgÁtôAiÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁr¹zÀgÉ F jÃw DUÀÄwÛgÀ°®è CAvÀ CAzÀ¼ÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî. £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇAUÀrAiÀĪÀgÀÄ D jÃw £À£ÀUÉ CA¢zÀÝjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É C¥ÀgÁzÀs §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ PÁgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀļÀÄî zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî."
18. The above suggestion made by the counsel for the accused to PW.1 is specifically denied by PW.1. The said suggestion clearly goes to show that the accused has admitted that Devika Rani has committed suicide by taking poison and it is the specific contention of the accused that Devika Rani was depressed due to her love affairs and as her family members have opposed for the same, she has taken poison and committed suicide. PW.1 has denied the same in toto.
19. Prosecution examined PW.2. PW.2 is the father of the deceased and he in his evidence stated that his daughter Devika Rani died on 07-10-2012 by taking poison. His daughter was working in the Card Board Factory. Since one 15 S.C.No.420/2013 year earlier to her death she was working in that Company. Since 15 days earlier to her death she was not attending her work as she was not keeping well. He know Pongadi, her house is near his house. He knows the daughter of Pongadi one Preetha. Preetha and Devika Rani were friends. Preetha and Devika Rani were aged about 18 years in the year 2012. On 06-10-2012, daughter of Pongadi one Preetha came to his house and she has taken the clothes of his daughter Devika Rani and went away with one boy. On 07-10-2012 when he was working as a security at Corporation School, accused came there 3-4 times and asked him where is his daughter Devika Rani and he told her that she went to his mother's house or sister's house. On that day at 8.00 p.m., he came to his house after finishing his work and after half an hour his daughter started vomiting, his wife and his son taken Devika Rani to K.C.General Hospital and he went for arranging money for hospital expenses. His wife after smelling told him that Devika Rani has taken the poison. Further this witness has stated that accused on that day came to his house and abused his daughter. Accused abused his daughter as Preetha went with some one boy. His wife told him that as accused has abused his daughter, his daughter has taken the poison and 16 S.C.No.420/2013 his daughter died at 11.00 p.m. on that day as accused has abused his daughter she was depressed and taken the poison. Further this witness has stated that, after his wife has lodged the complaint, Police came to the spot and they have made writing there and obtained his signature and identified his signature as Ex.P3(a). Further this witness has stated that, when the dead body of his daughter was at K.C.General Hospital, Police came there and seen the dead body and enquired him and he told the Police that the accused came to his house and quarreled with is daughter, so his daughter has taken poison and died. Prosecution treated this witness hostile in part and cross-examined this witness. This witness has stated that he was not present when accused came to his house. This witness has stated that he came to know that accused came to his house and abused his daughter and for that his daughter has committed suicide whereas the Police have recorded his statement and in the statement it is recorded that this witness was present at the time of incident. This witness in his examination-in-chief itself has stated that he was not present when the accused came and abused his daughter Devika Rani and he came to know regarding this incident through his wife. Further this witness has stated that 17 S.C.No.420/2013 he was not accompanied his daughter when she was taken to K.C.General Hospital whereas in the statement Police have recorded that this witness was also accompanied CW.1 to K.C.General Hospital. The counsel for the accused has cross- examined this witness and in the cross-examination this witness has stated that his daughter was not keeping well since 15 days earlier to the incident and his daughter has taken treatment 3-4 times. CW.1 has stated that they have not given any treatment to their daughter, whereas PW.2 has stated that they have given treatment in the Private Hospital for 3-4 times to his daughter. The said contradiction is not material contradiction in the present case in hand. This witness is a hearsay witness regarding the incident and he has stated that he came to know that accused came to his house and abused his daughter Devika Rani and for that his daughter was depressed and she has taken the poison.
20. Prosecution has examined PW.3. PW.3 in his evidence stated that CW.1 and 2 are his relatives. The house of CW.1 and 2 is near his house at Gowtham Nagara. The daughter's name of CW.1 is Devika Rani. Devika Rani was also called as Monika. He know one Pongadi, he is not knowing the name of the daughter of Pongadi. One year earlier to his 18 S.C.No.420/2013 evidence, Devika Rani has taken poison and died. The friend of Devika Rani went away with one boy, for that the Devika Rani has been frightened, so she has taken the poison. The accused has taken Devika Rani to Rasal area and asked her with whom her friend went and frightened her, so she has taken the poison. Further this witness has stated that the girl who has ran away is related to the accused. Further this witness has stated that, accused told Devika Rani that her friend has taken her clothes and she know that where her friend went and asked her to tell the name and place where they have gone and frightened her, so Devika Rani has taken poison in her house at 9.45 p.m. They have taken Devika Rani to the Hospital and there she died. Prosecution treated this witness hostile in part and cross-examined this witness and in the cross-examination this witness has admitted that the name of the daughter of Pongadi is Preetha. Further this witness has stated that on 07-10-2012, when he came near his house, Pongadi and accused were in front of the house of CW.1. Further this witness has admitted that the accused asked Devika Rani with whom Preetha went away and Devika Rani told that she is not knowing the same. The accused has abused Devika Rani and further this witness has admitted that 19 S.C.No.420/2013 accused has threatened Devika Rani that she will bring her and her parents to the street and for that Devika Rani has taken poison and died. This witness has been cross-examined by the counsel for the accused and in the cross-examination this witness has admitted that Rasal area is 1 Km. away from majestic. Further this witness has stated that he has not went to Rasal area, CW.1 told him that the accused has taken Devika Rani to Rasal area. Further this witness has stated that CW.1 and 2 have brought him to the court for giving evidence. This witness has given contrary evidence and stated that accused has taken Devika Rani to Rasal area and there she has abused her which is contrary to the prosecution case.
21. Prosecution examined PW.4 and PW.4 is the eye- witness and she turned hostile. Prosecution cross-examined her and nothing has been made out so as to help the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused.
22. Prosecution has examined PW.11. PW.11 in her evidence stated that, CW.1 is her mother's elder sister's daughter. She knows the daughter of CW.1 one Devika Rani. The house of CW.1 is at Gowtham Nagara. Three years earlier to her evidence at 6.00 p.m., she went for leaving her daughter for tuition and when she was proceeding in front of 20 S.C.No.420/2013 the house of CW.1, there accused Lakshmi and Pongadi were quarrelling with Devika Rani. Pongadi was asking Devika Rani where her daughter Preetha went. Devika Rani told her that she is not knowing where she went. Thereafter she went to leave her daughter for tuition. She left her daughter for tuition and returning to her house at 6.30 p.m. when she was in front of house of CW.1 accused assaulted Devika Rani with hands two times on her cheeks, accused told Devika Rani that you are knowing where the daughter of Pongadi went, if you will not tell where she went she will bring her to street. Further this witness has stated that she told the accused that don't use such words to Devika Rani and came back to her house and on that day at 9.00 p.m., the sister of Devika Rani Bhumika came to her house and told that Devika Rani is vommitting and she came to the house of CW.1, at that time Devika Rani has kept her hand on mouth and when she removed her hand she smelled poison and they have taken Devika Rani to K.C.General Hospital and in the hospital she died. Devika Rani has taken the poison used for killing the bed bugs and died. As accused assaulted Devika Rani and told her that she will bring her to street, she has taken the poison and committed suicide. Further this witness has stated that Police came to the 21 S.C.No.420/2013 Hospital and enquired her and obtained her signature. This witness has been cross-examined by the counsel for the accused.
23. The counsel for the accused has cross-examined PW.11 and nothing has been made out in her cross- examination except the fact that she is related to CW.1. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.11 clearly goes to show that on 07- 10-2012 about 6.30 to 7.00 p.m., accused Lakshmi and Pongadi came to the house of CW.1 and accused asked Devika Rani to say the whereabouts of Preetha and when Devika Rani told that she is not knowing anything, accused abused Devika Rani in public place and further she threatened Devika Rani saying that she will bring her and her parents on street and also assaulted Devika Rani with hands and Devika Rani being depressed, on the same day at 9.30 p.m., has taken poison and died.
24. Prosecution has examined PW.5 and PW.5 in his evidence stated that on 08-10-2012 he went to Srirampura Police Station and on that day Police have brought the clothes of a girl who has committed suicide from the hospital and Police have shown the said clothes and made writings and obtained his signature. On that day CW.11 was also there in 22 S.C.No.420/2013 the Police Station and identified the writings as per Ex.P7 and identified his signature as Ex.P7(a) and identified the clothes shown to him as MO.1 to 3. This witness has been cross- examined by the counsel for the accused and in the cross- examination this witness has admitted that he is not knowing reading Kannada language, he is not knowing what is written in Ex.P7. Further this witness has stated that CW.1 is his aunt and she brought her to the court today for giving evidence.
25. Prosecution has examined PW.6 and PW.6 is the WPC who has catch-hold the accused and produced before the Investigating Officer and she has stated that the Investigating Officer has directed her to catch-hold the accused and produce before him and she has catch-hold and produced before the Investigating Officer.
26. PW.7 is the Police Constable of Srirampura Police Station and he in his evidence stated that on 08-10-2012 at 8.00 a.m. as per the directions of Police Sub-Inspector of his Police Station he has shifted the dead body for Postmortem and after Postmortem, received the dead body and handed- over the same to the relatives of the deceased. Further this witness has stated that on 13-11-2012 he has received the Postmortem Report, Viscera and the clothes belongs to the 23 S.C.No.420/2013 deceased from the Medical Officer and produced them before the Investigating Officer. Further this witness has stated that on 15-11-2012 Investigating Officer has handed-over the Postmortem Report, Viscera and clothes belongs to the deceased and asked him to produce at FSL Office for examination and accordingly he went to the FSL Office and produced the same before the FSL Officer.
27. Prosecution examined PW.9 and PW.9 is the Asst. Professor in Department of Forensic Medicines, BMCRI, Bengaluru and she in her evidence stated that in the year 2012 she was working as Asst. Professor in Department of Forensic Medicines, BMCRI, Bengaluru. On 08-10-2012, at the request of Srirampura Police, she has conducted the Postmortem examination of the dead body belongs to Devika Rani @ Monika, aged about 18 years on the same day from 2.45 to 3.45 p.m. The dead body is that of a female measuring 145 Cms in length, rigor mortis appreciated on all part of the body. Post mortem staining seen over the back of the body. Injections mark seen over the back of the right hand. There were no demonstrable external injuries found on the body. On dissection except for lungs and stomach all organs were intact. Both the lungs were congested and oedemotous. Stomach 24 S.C.No.420/2013 contains 100 ml of brown colour fluid with peculiar smell. Mucosa congested and hemorrhagic. Blood and viscera were collected, preserved and sent for Forensic Science Laboratory. Further this witness has stated that on 04-01-2013, she has received requisition from Srirampura Police along with the FSL Report for opinion for the death of Devika Rani. She has perused the Postmortem Report and FSL Report, she has opined that cause of death is due to Respiratory Failure as a result of consumption of some substance containing Quinalphos (Organo Phosphorous Insecticide). She has issued Report and identified the same as Ex.P14. Further this witness has stated that she has not mentioned the time since death in Ex.P14 as body was kept in cold storage. This witness has been cross-examined and nothing has been made out in her cross-examination so as to disbelieve her evidence. Further the counsel for the accused has not disputed the death of Devika Rani by consuming the poison.
28. Prosecution has examined PW.10. PW.10 in her evidence stated that in the year 2012 she was working as Scientific Officer at FSL, Madiwala, Bengaluru. On 13-11- 2012, her office has received 4 sealed articles in Crime No.159/2012 from Srirampura Police. The said articles were in 25 S.C.No.420/2013 glass bottles and were sealed. She has received the said articles for examination from her reception as per the directions of their Asst. Director. The seals on the said articles were intact and tallying with the sample seal sent by the Medical Officer. She has opened the said Articles and found;
1) contains stomach and its contents and portion of small intestine and its contents
2) Blood
3) Portion of liver and one kidney
4) Preservatives - Saturated solution of Sodium Chloride Further this witness has stated that, she examined Article No.1 to 4 and she has opined that the colour test, thin layer Chromatography and High performance thing layer chromatography methods have responded for the presence of Quinalphos (Organo Phosphorous Insecticide) in Ex.P1, 2 and 3 and the above tests responded negative in Ex.P4. Accordingly, she has issued Report and identified the same as Ex.P15. The counsel for the accused has not cross-examined this witness, so the evidence of this witness remained unchallenged.
29. In the present case, prosecution has examined the Investigating Officer who has conducted the investigation as PW.8 and PW.8 has clearly stated regarding the investigation 26 S.C.No.420/2013 done by him in his evidence. The counsel for the accused has cross-examined this witness and in the cross-examination this witness has admitted that he has not found any articles in the house of the deceased regarding consuming of poison. In the present case, the accused herself has not disputed regarding the death of Devika Rani by consuming poison. So, the said version of Investigating Officer will no way affect the case of prosecution. Further this witness has admitted that, he was not having any impediment for recording the statements of Pongadi and Preetha. In the present case, accused has not disputed that the daughter of Pongadi went to the house of CW.1 and she has taken the clothes of Devika Rani and went away. Further accused has not disputed that Devika Rani was died by consuming poison. So, not recording the statement of Pongadi and Preetha and non-citing them as witnesses will no way affect the case of prosecution. The Investigating Officer has clearly stated the investigation done by him and nothing has been made out in his cross-examination so as to disbelieve his evidence. The evidence of Investigating Officer, Medical Officer who has conducted the Postmortem examination and the Scientific Officer who has examined the articles sent to her 27 S.C.No.420/2013 and given her opinion, clearly corroborates the case of prosecution.
30. In the present case, PW.4 is eye-witness and she turned hostile. PW.3 has given some contrary evidence regarding the place of incident. The evidence of PW.1 and 11 clearly goes to show that the accused has abused Devika Rani in filthy language in a public place and threatened her saying that she will bring her and her parents on street and also assaulted her. The counsel for the accused while advancing the arguments has submitted that, in the present case, prosecution has examined the independent eye-witness as PW.4 and she turned hostile, so only interested version of PW.1 and 11 will not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Further counsel for the accused has submitted that, PW.1 and 11 are the related witnesses and their evidence is to be scrutinized very carefully and cautiously as they being the close relatives of the victim have tendency to exaggerate or add facts. In support of his contention counsel for the accused has relied upon citation reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court Page 1622 (Case: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra), wherein the lordship of Hon'ble Apex Court have held as under;
28 S.C.No.420/2013
"(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Sec.3 - Interested witness - Evidence, appreciation of - Close relatives of victim
- Have tendency to exaggerate or add facts-Court should examine their evidence with great care and caution."
31. In the present case, PW.1 is the mother of deceased Devika Rani and PW.11 is the CW.1's mother elder sister's daughter, so she is also related to victim. PW.1 and PW.11 in their evidence have clearly narrated regarding the incident. The counsel for the accused has cross-examined PW.1 and PW.11 and nothing has been made out in their cross-examination so as to show any grudge or ill-will against the accused. Further in the present case, it is very pertinent to note that one Pongadi is the mother of Preetha and the mother of Preetha one Pongadi and accused came to the house of complainant and accused has abused Devika Rani, gave threat to Devika Rani saying that she will bring her and her family members on street and assaulted her with hands and the complainant has lodged complaint against the accused only. The accused has not given any explanation, why complaint is lodged against her only. If really the complainant intended to give harassment unnecessarily, she ought to have lodged the complaint against Pongadi also. In the present 29 S.C.No.420/2013 case complainant has lodged the compliant against the accused person only, no ill-will or grudge was there between the complainant and accused earlier to the incident. Complainant came to know the accused first time when she came to her house, abused, threatened and assaulted her daughter Devika Rani. Earlier to that accused and complainant were not knowing each other. There was no ill-will between the accused and complainant and as the complainant has abused Devika Rani in public place, threatened Devika Rani saying that she will bring her and her parents on street and assaulted her for that Devika Rani became depressed and taken poison and died. The complainant has lodged complaint only against the accused. As per the above referred citation of Hon'ble Apex Court, the evidence of related witness cannot be brushed away only for the reason that they are related to the victim. As per the principles laid down in the said citation, there is every chance that the related witness may exaggerate or add the fact, so court must be cautious while appreciating the evidence of related witnesses. In the present case, perusal of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.11 clearly shows that there is no exaggeration of facts made by PW.1 and PW.11, no ill-will or grudge is there between the accused and PW.1, 11. PW.1 30 S.C.No.420/2013 and PW.11 have clearly stated regarding the incident and the evidence of PW.1 and PW.11 clearly proves beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of incident at 6.30 to 7.00 p.m., the accused came to the house of Devika Rani along with Pongadi and accused has abused Devika Rani in a public place in filthy language, gave threat to her saying that she will bring her and her parents on street and assaulted her and Devika Rani being depressed, has taken poison and died and thereby accused has abated Devika Rani for committing suicide.
32. In the present case, it is the specific case of the accused during the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses that Devika Rani was having love affairs with one boy who is working in the Card Board Factory where Devika Rani was working and parents of Devika Rani have opposed for the said affairs, so she was not attending the work since 15 days earlier to the incident and she being depressed, for that reason Devika Rani has taken poison and committed suicide. In order to prove the said defence, accused has not entered in the witness box. Further accused has not lead any defence evidence, accused has not produced any documentary evidence to show that Devika Rani was having love affairs with one boy who is working in the Card Board Factory where she 31 S.C.No.420/2013 was working and her parents were opposed for the same and for that reason she was not attending the working since 15 days earlier to the incident and for that reason she was depressed.
33. In the present case, the counsel for the accused has cross-examined PW.1. In the cross-examination the counsel for the accused has suggested to PW.1 that her daughter Devika Rani was having love affairs with one boy who was working in the Card Board Factory where Devika Rani was working and the said suggestion is denied by PW.1. Further counsel for the accused has suggested to PW.1 that as they have opposed for the love affairs, Devika Rani was depressed and taken poison for that reason and the same was denied by PW.1. Further the counsel for accused has suggested to PW.1 that, Pongadi and accused-Lakshmi came to Victoria Hospital to see Devika Rani and at that time Pongadi told PW.1 that if they have agreed for marriage of Devika Rani with that boy this incident would not have happened and the said suggestion is also denied by PW.1. Only suggestions made by the counsel for the accused to the prosecution witnesses which are denied and disputed by PW.1 and other prosecution witnesses will not help the accused to prove her defence. In the complaint, 32 S.C.No.420/2013 complainant has stated that since 15 days her daughter was not going for work, PW.1 and 2 who are the parents of Devika Rani have stated that as their daughter was not keeping well, so she was not attending to the work. So, the suggestions made by the counsel for the accused to the prosecution witnesses which have been denied and disputed by the prosecution witnesses will no way help the accused to prove her defence. So, the accused has utterly failed to show that Devika Rani was having love affair with one boy who was working in Card Board Factory where Devika Rani was working and parents of Devika Rani were opposed for the said marriage, so Devika Rani was depressed and for that reason she has committed suicide.
34. The counsel for the accused at the time of advancing the arguments submitted that, the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of witnesses Preethi and Pongadi and not cited them as witnesses in this case and that is fatal to the case of prosecution. In the present case, accused has not disputed the fact that the daughter of Pongadi came to the house of complainant and taken clothes belongs to Devika Rani and went away with one boy. Further accused has not disputed the fact that Devika Rani has taken poison and 33 S.C.No.420/2013 committed suicide and death of Devika Rani was homicidal death. In the above facts and circumstances, non-citing of Preethi and Pongadi as witnesses in this case is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
35. The learned counsel for the accused has relied upon citation reported (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 85 (Case:Atmaram S/o Rayasingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra), wherein the lordship of Hon'ble Apex Court held that;
"(B) Penal Code, 1860 - Ss.306 and 498-A - Abetment of suicide of married woman by her husband and his relatives -
Conviction based on invocation of presumption under Sec.113-A, Evidence Act -
"Cruelty" on part of husband or his relatives driving deceased to commit suicide not established - Held, presumption under S.113-A, Evidence Act erroneously invoked."
36. In the present case, facts and circumstances involved in this case and to that of above cited ruling are entirely different, so giving full respect to the Lordship's in the above cited ruling, I am of the opinion that principles laid down in the above ruling are not applicable in the present case in hand. In the present case, evidence of PW.11 is clearly corroborated with PW.1, further the evidence of Medical Officer, FSL Officer and Investigating Officer clearly 34 S.C.No.420/2013 corroborates the prosecution case. Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused on 07-10-2012 at 6.30 p.m. went to the house of CW.1-Parvathy and told her that Preetha D/o Smt.Pongadi is her relative and on 06-10-2012 at 7.30 p.m., said Preetha had came to the house of CW.1 and thereafter Preetha went away with some boy by wearing the dress of the daughter of CW.1 Devika Rani, further accused told CW.1 that her daughter Devika Rani is responsible for the same and when CW.1 enquired her daughter, she told that she does not know anything, for that accused abused Devika Rani in filthy language and threatened her by saying that she will not leave Devika Rani and her parents and she will bring them on street and accused assaulted Devika Rani with hands and in view of that Devika Rani depressed and consumed poison used for killing the bed bugs and committed suicide and thereby abated Devika Rani to commit suicide and thereby committed the offence under Sec.306 of I.P.C. Hence, for the above discussion, I answer point No.1 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
37. POINT No.2: In view of my finding point No.1 and reasons stated there, I proceed to pass the following: 35 S.C.No.420/2013
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(2) Cr.P.C. accused Lakshmi is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.306 of I.P.C.
Order on sentence is deferred for hearing the accused on sentence to be passed against her as contemplated under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of September 2015).
(SHIVAJI ANANT NALAWADE) LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE Heard accused and her counsel regarding imposition of sentence. Heard the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor regarding imposition of sentence.
2. Accused has stated that she is aged about 40 years, she is having two minor daughters, one married daughter and one major son. She is a widow. She is working as house maid, her minor daughters are depending on her and she is the only earning member in her family. The offence committed by her is the first offence. The counsel for the 36 S.C.No.420/2013 accused has submitted that accused is a lady, she is having minor daughters, accused is the only earning member in her family, if accused is sentenced severely, her dependents will be put to hardship and inconvenience. The offence committed by the accused is the first offence and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case prayed for taking lenient view while imposing sentence.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that, the accused has committed the offence under Sec.306 of I.P.C., due to the act of accused CW.1 has lost her 18 years daughter and looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, accused is not entitled for any lenient view and prayed for punishing the accused severely.
4. In the present case, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence under Sec.306 of I.P.C. The offence under Sec.306 of I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years and fine.
In the present case, due to the act of accused CW.1 has lost her 18 years daughter. In the present case, looking to the facts and circumstances and as the offence under Sec.306 of I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years and fine, the accused is not entitled for benefit under Sec.3 and 4 of 37 S.C.No.420/2013 Prohibition of Offenders Act and Sec.360 of I.P.C. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, i.e., CW.1 has lost her 18 years daughter, looking to the fact that accused is a lady she is having two minor daughters aged about 8 and 16 years and they are depending on her, the offence committed by the accused is the first offence, sentence of imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- is sufficient for the offence under Sec.306 of I.P.C., in default of fine Simple Imprisonment for two months is sufficient. Accused has undergone judicial custody from 08-10-2012 till 22-10-2012 and accused is entitled for set off of judicial custody undergone by her as contemplated under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused by name Lakshmi is convicted for the offence under Sec.306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for Five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for Two months.
The period of detention spent by accused in judicial custody shall be taken into consideration in the event of remission and commutation of sentence under Sec.432 and 433 of Cr.P.C.
38 S.C.No.420/2013
The accused is entitled to set-off under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. for the period which she has already undergone being in judicial custody.
Accused has undergone judicial custody from 08-10-2012 till 22-10-2012. Issue conviction warrant accordingly.
MO.1 to 3 are worthless articles, hence same is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
Office to supply copy of the Judgment to the accused free of cost.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of September 2015).
(SHIVAJI ANANT NALAWADE) LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW.1 Parvathi CW.1 11-03-2014 PW.2 Rajendra Prasad CW.2 11-03-2014 PW.3 Bhaskar CW.3 23-06-2014 PW.4 Sudha CW.7 14-10-2014 PW.5 Nagaraj CW.10 04-12-2014 PW.6 Radha CW.16 07-01-2015 PW.7 M.D.Shivashankarappa CW.15 07-01-2015 PW.8 Ravi C. Ukkunda CW.18 25-02-2015 PW.9 Dr.C.N.Sumangala CW.13 23-04-2015 39 S.C.No.420/2013 PW.10 Dr.Gundamma Patil CW.14 08-06-2015 PW.11 Krishnaveni CW.4 08-06-2015 Documents marked for the prosecution: Ex.P1 Complaint PW.1 11-03-2014 Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW.1 " " Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW.8 PW.8 25-02-2015 Ex.P2 3 Photos of deceased PW.2 11-03-2014 Ex.P3 Spot Mahazar PW.2 11-03-2014 Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW.2 PW.2 11-03-2014 Ex.P3(b) Signature of PW.8 PW.8 25-02-2015 Ex.P4 Receipt for having PW.2 11-03-2014 received the dead body Ex.P5 Portion of statement PW.1 PW.2 11-03-2014 in Inquest Mahazar Ex.P5(a) Inquest Report PW.8 25-02-2015 Ex.P5(b) Signature of PW.8 " " Ex.P6 161 Statement of PW.4 PW.4 14-10-2014 Ex.P7 Seizure Mahazar PW.5 04-12-2014 Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW.5 " " Ex.P7(b) Signature of PW.8 PW.8 25-02-2015 Ex.P8 Report of PW.6 PW.6 07-01-2015 Ex.P8(a) Signature of PW.6 " " Ex.P9 Report of PW.7 PW.7 07-01-2015 Ex.P9(a) Signature of PW.7 " " Ex.P10 FIR PW.8 25-02-2015 Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW.8 " " Ex.P11 Form No.146(i) PW.8 " Ex.P12 Form No.146(ii) " " 40 S.C.No.420/2013 Ex.P13 P.F.No.89/2012 " " Ex.P13(a) Two Signature of PW.8 " " Ex.P14 Postmortem Report " " Ex.P14(a) Signature of PW.8 " " Ex.P15 FSL Report " " Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW.8 " " Ex.P15(b) Signature of PW.10 PW.10 08-06-2015 Ex.P16 Accident Register Extract PW.8 25-02-2015 Ex.P16(a) Signature of PW.8 " " Ex.P17 Report of ASI " " Ex.P18 Police Notice PW.11 08-06-2015 Ex.P19 Voluntary statement of " " PW.11
Material objects marked for the prosecution:
MO.1 Nighty PW.5 04-12-2014 MO.2 One underwear " " MO.3 One Shimmy cloth " "
Witness examined, documents marked and material objects marked for the accused:
- Nil -
LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.