Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs Nos. 1. Bairappa @ Swami on 4 December, 2021
KABC010083272016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE BENGALURU CITY [CCH.63]
Dated: This the 4th day of December, 2021
Present: Sri. R. ONKARAPPA, B.Sc., L.L.B.,
LXII Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
Sessions Case No. 430/2016
Complainant: State of Karnataka
By Vijayanagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
Bengaluru.
Vs.
Accused Nos. 1. Bairappa @ Swami
S/o Boregowda,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No. 15/11, 1st Main road, 2nd
Cross, Sampige Layout,
Prashanthnagar,
Bengaluru
2. Boregowda
S/o Late Ningaiah,
Aged about 54 years,
R/at Makronahalli, Amruthuru hobli,
Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District
2 S.C.No. 430/2016
3. Smt. Gangamma
W/o Boregowda,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at Makronahalli, Amruthuru hobli,
Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District
(Sri. C.R.P, Advocate)
Date of commission of offence 10.05.2014
Date of report of offence 10.05.2014
Date of Arrest of the Accused Accused No. 1 on 10.05.2014
Accused Nos. 2 and 3 on
21.06.2014
Name of the complainant Rathnamma
Date of commencement of 24.07.2017
trial
Date of closing of prosecution 27.11.2019
evidence
Offences complained of Under Sections 306 r/w 34 of
I.P.C.
Opinion of the Judge Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are
acquitted acting under Section
235(1) of Cr.P.C.
(R. ONKARAPPA),
LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
3 S.C.No. 430/2016
JUDGMENT
The present case arises out of the charge sheet submitted by Vijayanagar Police Station against the accused persons in Crime No. 214/2014 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief based on the complaint lodged by the complainant the crime came to be registered alleging that on 07.05.2014 at about 5.30 pm, the son-in-law of the complainant quarreled and assaulted the complainant and her daughter. That on 10.05.2014, the husband of the complainant was not found and when the complainant went to the passage found that the husband of the complainant have committed suicide by hanging. Later the complainant found a death note, wherein it written that, son-in-law of the complainant gave abatement to cause death of husband of the complainant. After investigation the complainant police have submitted the charge sheet against to the accused Nos. 1 to 3.
3. That, on receipt of the charge sheet, the Learned 24th A.C.M.M. took the cognizance of the aforesaid offence 4 S.C.No. 430/2016 against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the case has been registered in Criminal Case No. 25340/2015 and since the offence alleged against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 one exclusively triable by court of sessions, the Learned 24 th A.C.M.M. Bengaluru, after compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. committed the case against the accused to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru as per the Order dated 23.02.2016. That on committal of the case to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the case was registered against the accused in S.C.No. 430/2016 and the same was made over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter on hearing the prosecution as well as the Learned Counsel for the accused u/s 227 of Cr.P.C. this Court framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 R/w 34 of IPC. When the charge has been read over and explained to the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried.
That in order to prove the prosecution case, out of eighteen witnesses cited in the charge sheet, the 5 S.C.No. 430/2016 prosecution got examined nine witnesses only as PW.1 to PW.9 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 and Ex.P19(a). The learned Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of CW15 and CW16 on 18.07.2019. Even publication of proclamation against to CW6, CW9 and CW10, CW6, CW9 and CW10 have not secured before the Court. Accordingly evidence of CW6, CW9 and CW10 have been dropped on 30.04.2019. Inspite of issuance of coercive steps against to CW18 and CW11, CW18 and CW11 not turned up, hence the prayer of the Ld. Public Prosecutor for reissuing further coercive steps against the aforesaid witnesses was rejected on 27.11.2019 and evidence of CW11 and 18 have not dropped. Inspite of issuance of witness warrant against to the CW8, CW8 not turned up, hence evidence of CW8 taken as dropped. Learned Public Prosecutor filed memo stating evidence of CW4 may be given up. In view of the memo, evidence of CW4 taken as dropped as per order dated 08.09.2020. The prosecution evidence taken as closed on 09.08.2021. Thereafter, the matter was posted for recording of the statement of the accused under Section 6 S.C.No. 430/2016 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them. The Accused have not led any defence evidence on their behalf.
5. Heard argument on both sides. Perused the records.
6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the following Points arise for consideration of this Court is that:
1. Whether the Prosecution proves its case beyond all reasonable doubt, that the death of deceased K.T. Ramachandra was one of unnatural?
2. Whether the prosecution proves its case beyond all reasonable doubt that the death of deceased K.T. Ramachandra was happened in the eve of abatement given by the accused Nos. 1 to 3?
3. What Order?
7. Findings of the Court on the above Points are as follows:
Point No.1 - In the Affirmative
Point No. 2 - In the Negative, as per
Final Order, for the following:
7 S.C.No. 430/2016
REASONS
8. Point No.1: That in order to prove the prosecution case, out of eighteen witnesses cited in the charge sheet as CW1 to CW13 and CW15 to CW19, the prosecution got examined only nine witnesses as PW.1 to PW.9 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 and Ex.P19(a).
9. Since the prosecution made the charge against to the accused for the offence punishable u/s 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. it need to prove the same case against to the accused. Since the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9, oral testimony of PW1 to PW9 required to scrutinize, independently.
10. Firstly prosecution chosen to examine CW1 Ratna as PW1. According to her chief examination deceased K. T. Ramchandra was her husband. CW5 is her daughter. CW3 is her distant relative. CW4 is her villager. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 known to PW1 as they are relatives of PW1. Accused No. 1 is her son-in-law. On 10.05.2014 it came to knew that the deceased was hanged himself at one grill of the back side 8 S.C.No. 430/2016 passage of the house. Until 6.30 am she don't know whereabouts of her husband, She thought that deceased might have gone to bring the milk. About 10.00 am of on that day PW1 went along with CW5 and her another daughter Pallavi to back side passage of her house, it had noticed that the deceased had hanged himself. Suddenly PW1 and her two daughters took the deceased K.T. Ramachandra in one auto to Vijayanagar hospital wherein the doctors certified that the deceased K. T. Ramchandra brought him dead. On account of that she return back to her house along with dead body. Wherein the Vijaynagar policemen were came and insist her to lodge a complaint for the offence of abatment. Then she had lodged a complaint. In so far lodge the complaint, the police have forcefully took a signature upon one complaint which was prepared by the police. PW1 identified the signature available on the complaint. As such said complaint got marked before this court as per Ex.P1 and signature of PW1 as per Ex.P1(a). PW1 further deposed that she don't know the contents of Ex.P1 complaint. The police have also not explained the 9 S.C.No. 430/2016 contents available on Ex.P1 complaint. She had not stated anything in the complaint for what reason the deceased was committed a suicide. According to PW1 no death note left by the deceased. PW1 can't identified the signature available on death note dated 09.05.2014. She had not gave any statement to the police that so far availability of death note. Since the witness turned hostile in total learned Public Prosecutor sought permission to cross examined the PW1. Even inspite of cross examined the PW1, nothing of the prosecution case elicited through the mouth of PW1 except denial of suggestion. When go through the cross examination of the defence, PW1 have admitted the suggestion that no loan was raised neither the PW1 nor her husband at Anjaneya Co-operative bank in favour of accused No. 1. Further admitted the suggestion that neither of the ornaments belongs to the PW1 or CW5 were pledged by the accused No. 1 for the money. Further admitted the suggestion that accused No. 2 and 3 reside at Kunigal after they separate from the accused No. 1. Unequivocally 10 S.C.No. 430/2016 admitted the suggestion that accused Nos. 1 to 3 are not responsible to the suicide, committed by the deceased.
11. CW5 Pavitra examined as PW2. According to PW2 deceased K.T. Ramachandra was her father. PW1 is her mother. Accused No. 1 is her husband. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are parents of the accused No. 1. Marriage of the PW1 along with the accused No. 1 have solemnized in the year of 2011. After the marriage, PW2 started lived at Sampige layout along with accused No. 1, father, mother and her younger sister. On 10.05.2014, deceased K.T. Ramachandra hanged himself at the passage set to back side of the house. During the life time of K.T. Ramachandra he was working at Prosecution department as a Typewriter. The 1 st accused runs a Bairaweshwara tours and travels. PW2 don't know about to dispute between the accused No. 1 and her father deceased K.T. Ramachandra regarding finance. PW2 don't know for what reason K. T. Ramachandra have committed the suicide. PW2 turned hostile to identified the signature available on death note dated 09.05.2014, also turned hostile to identified the signature of the deceased available 11 S.C.No. 430/2016 on casual leave letter. Since PW2 identified the autopsy of deceased which was pitcher-ed in one photo same photo got marked as per Ex.P2. PW2 denied that she had not gave any statement U/s 161 of CrPC before the Police. Since the witness turned hostile in total learned Public Prosecutor cross examined the PW2. Inspite of cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor nothing of the prosecution case has been elicited through the mouth of PW2 except an denial of suggestion. Since PW2 denied the suggestion in so far statement u/s 161 CrPC at before the police, the same statement got marked as per Ex.P3. PW2 in her cross examination done by the defence counsel, PW2 unequivocally admitted the suggestion that deceased had Blood pressure, in view of that, the deceased acted with abnormally. Despite advice to the deceased for treatment, the deceased had refused to take treatment so far his abnormality. Further also admitted the suggestion that blood pressure and abnormal act of the deceased might be a reason to commit the suicide by the deceased K.T. Ramachandra.
12 S.C.No. 430/2016
12. CW3 one Krishnegowda examined as PW3.
According to the prosecution PW3 is one of the inquest mahazar witness. PW3 identified the signature available on said inquest purported to be drawn on dead body of the deceased. In view of identified the signature available on said inquest, said inquest got marked as per Ex.P4 and signature of PW3 as per Ex.P4(a). PW3 deposed that the complainant police have took his signature on 10.05.2014 while conduct the inquest upon the dead body of the deceased. In the cross examination by the defence it elicited through the mouth of PW3 that no notice or summons had been issued by the Vijayanagar police in so far call him to attested the Ex.P4 inquest.
13. CW2 one Thimmaiah examined as PW4. According to the prosecution he is also a inquest mahazar witness. PW4 identified the signature available on said inquest which was already got marked as per Ex.P4. Signature of PW4 got marked as per Ex.P4(b). PW4 don't know for what reason the deceased was committed the suicide. Since PW4 turned hostile, the Prosecution cross examined the PW4. Inspite of 13 S.C.No. 430/2016 cross examination nothing of the prosecution case has been elicited through the mouth of PW4.
14. One CW13 Dr. V. Aravindan examined as PW5. According to the prosecution PW5 is one of the expert at FSL, Madivala, Bangalore. According to his chief examination, from 2004 onwards he is the incharge of Assistant Director, FSL, Madivala. On 18.04.2014, Vijayanagar Police Inspector have sent five sealed cover to FSL for examination in relating to the Crime No. 214/2014. In that sealed cover PW5 found two documents wherein two documents bears the admitted and disputed signatures. To that regard the police have sought for opinion. He identified the covering letter which was said to be sent by the Police Inspector, same has got marked as per Ex.P5. In acknowledgment of said document which was said to be sent by the Police Inspector, receipt have been issued by his office, same receipt he got identified and got marked as per Ex.P6. After compare the seal available on sealed cover with sample seal, sealed covers are kept opened and documents were subjected to examination. On 09.05.2014 one sealed 14 S.C.No. 430/2016 cover bears one sheet he gave a code to signature available on said document as Q-1 and 2 nd sealed cover bears four letters wherein he found casual leave applications belonged K. T. Ramachandra, the same signature available on each casual leave application gave a code as S1, S2, S3 and S4. When compare the disputed signature Q1 with admitted signature S1 to S4 by scientific examination PW5 found that disputed signature Q1 and admitted S1 to S4 are belonging to a same person. When he arrived to conclusion he gave a detailed reasons at his report. After enlarge and seen that the disputed signature and admitted signature then he found both signature are belonging to same persons. To this respect he gave a report to the Investigating Officer, now he see the said report and same report got marked as per Ex.P7. Signature available on Ex.P7 got marked as Ex.P7(a). PW5 identified the document in which it bears the enlarged admitted and disputed signature, same document got marked as per Ex.P8, signature of the PW5 available on Ex.P8 got marked as per Ex.P8(a). PW5 identified the document which are sent by the Forensic Science Labrotary, 15 S.C.No. 430/2016 same documents are got marked as per Ex.P9, Ex.P10, Ex.P11, Ex.P12 and Ex.P13. PW5 identified the signature available on Ex.P9, same got marked as per Ex.P9(a). PW5 got identified the signature available on the documents which bears S1 to S4 signatures as per Ex.P10(a), Ex.P11(a), Ex.P12(a) and Ex.P13(a). After examined the said document he sent his opinion to Investigating Officer in one sealed cover with a sealed manner. PW5 got identified the report, same report got identified and got marked as per Ex.P14 and signature of the PW5 as per Ex.P14(a). In the cross examination of PW5, PW5 answered that he got the qualification of MSc. PHD graduation. PW5 answered to the question he got MSc. graduation in biology as the Specialized subject. In question relating to thumb or signature expertness PW5 answered that he got training from national Institute of Forensic Science and Criminology in relating to Forensic Science. PW5 also answered to the question he appointed as Assistant Director in Forensic Science Labrotary. Denied the suggestion that despite he has no qualification pertains to signature expertness he 16 S.C.No. 430/2016 deposing falsely. Denied the suggestion that he had not appointed to examine the disputed documents and its signatures. Admitted the suggestion that the instruments available in private labrotary which were used for arrive to the conclusion as per the report Ex.P14. Further also admitted the suggestion that Private labrotary have highly equipped instrument then to the government labrotary instrument which was used for get the report as per Ex.P14. Admitted the suggestion that at Ex.P14 report he arrived to conclusion that due to continuous putting his signature on such consistency he arrived to conclusion. Denied the suggestion that one person can put the signature of other persons by seeing signature of that person continuously. Denied the suggestion one can accurate his signature to the other by continuous practice. Denied the suggestion equipments available at Labrotary of PW5 are not sufficient to arrive to the conclusion. Denied the suggestion scientifically failed to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature. Denied the suggestion, disputed 17 S.C.No. 430/2016 signature and admitted signature are not belonging to this case file.
15. One CW12 Dr. C. N. Sumangala examined as PW6. In her chief examination she deposed that on 10.05.2014 at request of PSI, Vijayanagar PS, she had conducted Postmortem examination over the dead body of K.T. Ramachandra, aged 53 years old, on the same day 1.45 pm to 2.30 pm. She noted external injury i.e. Ligarture mark / incomplete present over front sides and back of neck, measuring 35cmsx1cms. It was situated 3cm below right ear lobule, 5 cm Chin, and 6 Cms below lobule. Skin over the ligature marks was dried, dark, hard and parchmentised. The ligature material furnished by the Police was thin cotton rope in two pieces each measuring 88cms and 120 cms. On twisting it correspondence to ligature mark and can with stand weight of the body. After examination the ligature materials was handed over to the Police in unsealed manner. On the dissection of dead body except brain, lungs and heart all other organs were intact. Heart, lungs and brain shows petechial hemorrhage. On dissection of neck 18 S.C.No. 430/2016 structurer underlaying the ligature mark was pale and glistering. Antimorten ligature mark, hanging present. Opinion to the cause of death, "Death due to asphyxia as a result of hanging". Accordingly PW6 issued PM report. Same got marked as per Ex.P15 and signatures of PW6 as per Ex.P15(a) and Ex.P15(b). PW6 identified the two white colored ropes and same ropes got marked as MO 1 and 2. PW6 is of the opinion that, like that of Mo 1 and 2 may caused the death of deceased by hanging. During the cross examination, PW6 admitted that she had not mentioned at Ex.P15 at what time deceased was dead. Denied the suggestion that, due to non mentioning of the time, at Ex.P15, it can't give a proper opinion for the cause of death of the deceased. Denied the suggestion, like that of M.O.1 and M.O.2 ropes was not produced by Police at any point of time.
16. CW19 one H. B. Sanjeevgowda examined as PW7, who is a Investigating Office. According to his testimony he being a Police Inspector of Vijayanagar police station from 11.05.2015 to 04.08.2016, on 11.05.2015 he received a 19 S.C.No. 430/2016 case file from CW18 Raghavendra for Investigation. On 06.07.2015 he received a report from Forensic Science Labrotary, same report he got identified, same already got marked as per Ex.P7 and got marked his signature as per Ex.P7(b). He identified the sample seal which was sent by the Forensic Science labrotary, same sample seal got identified and marked as per Ex.P16 and signature of the PW7 as per Ex.P16(a). On 05.10.2015, he recorded a statement of CW8. On 13.05.2015 he got obtained one photograph upon autopsy of deceased K. T. Ramachandra, same photographs he got identified and same already got marked as per Ex.P2 and remaining two photographs as per Ex.P17 and P18. On 08.10.2015 after completion of the investigation and he finds the prima facie case against to the accused, he submitted the charge sheet to the Court. In the Cross examination, PW7 deposed that he recorded the statement of CW8 Shivakumar for the reason, said Shivakumar have a cordial relationship with the deceased. CW8 Shivakumar told to PW7 that so as to Cordial relationship with Shivakumar and deceased K.T. 20 S.C.No. 430/2016 Ramachandra. Denied the suggestion that no reason remains to record the statement of CW8 Shivakumar and have not investigated the case file in accordance with law. Denied the suggestion that he had submitted false charge sheet.
17. CW17 One K. Venkatesh examined as PW8.
According to the Prosecution, who being the Police Sub- Inspector from 12.12.2012 to 14.07.2014 at Vijayaganagar police station, at 11.05.2014 at morning 9.00 am CW1 Ratnamma appeared before him and lodge the written complaint. Based on such complaint PW8 registered the case in Cr. No. 214/2014 for the offence punishable under section 306 r/w 34 of IPC and sent a FIR to the Jurisdictional Court. He got identified said complaint now it has already got marked as per Ex.P1 and signature of the PW8 got marked as per Ex.P1(b). PW8 got identified the FIR, same got marked as per Ex.P19 and his signature got marked as per Ex.P19(a). On the date of incident at morning 9.30 am PW8 visited the spot and after secured the CW2 Thimmaiah, CW3 Krishnegowda and CW4 Venkatappa as panchas he 21 S.C.No. 430/2016 drawn a spot mahazar and inquest mahazar. At the time of investigation at beside the autopsy of deceased he seized one computerized death note wrote in the language of Kannada and one tied twisted thread and one two folded thread. Same seized articles were subjected under PF No. 102/2014 by the PW8 of his station. He got obtained a photograph upon the dead body of the deceased. At before the CW2, CW3 and CW4 he drawn an inquest mahazar upon the dead body of the deceased. Same inquest mahazar he got identified, now it has already got marked as per Ex.P4 and signature of the PW8 got marked as per Ex.P4(c). On the same day PW8 recorded the statement of CW5 Pavitra and CW6 Vijayalakshmi. On the same amid day of the incident at 1.00 pm he sent the dead body of the deceased to Victoria hospital for post mortem examination. On the same day PW8 got arrested the accused No. 1 Bairappa @ swamy and produced before the Court. Since the offence one of the heinous offence, PW8 transferred the case records to CW18 for further investigation. PW8 got identified said ropes and same got marked as per M.O.1 and M.O2. 22 S.C.No. 430/2016 PW8 got identified the death note, now it has been already got marked as per Ex.P9. PW8 got identified the photographs which were obtained upon the dead body of the deceased same photographs already got marked as per Ex.P2, Ex.P17 and Ex.P18. PW8 got identified the accused No. 1 before the Court. In the cross examination, PW8 can't to say in whose hand writing Ex.P1 complaint was written. Denied the suggestion Ex.P1 complainant prepared by the police themselves and got obtained the signature of PW1 at the house of PW1. Unequivocally admitted the suggestion that he has not drawn any seizer mahazar upon the Ex.P9 death note. Unequivocally admitted the suggestion no mahazar had been drawn at the time of seized the M.O.1 and M.O.2. Unequivocally admitted the suggestion no death note available at near the dead body of the deceased. Denied the suggestion Ex.P9 death note planted by them for the purpose of this case. Denied the suggestion that he had not recorded the statement of CW5 and CW6.
23 S.C.No. 430/2016
18. CW7 Venkataram examined as PW9. In his examination in chief he deposed that he knew the deceased K.T. Ramachandra. He and deceased Ramachandra were working together. Deceased K.T. Ramachandra had two daughter. Name of the First daughter Pavitra and name of the second daughter name Pallavi. In the year of 2011 deceased K.T. Ramachandra gave his first daughter Pavitra to accused No.1 for marriage. No male child belonged to K.T. Ramachandra. After the marriage, the accused No. 1 used to reside at house of K.T. Ramchandra. At that time, no job that the accused No.1 have had. Thereby, K.T. Ramachandra pledged his house and from the pledged loan amount deceased K.T. Ramachandra did accommodation of job, namely travel agency to the 1st accused. It came knew to the PW.9, that there was an covenant between deceased K.T. Ramachandra and 1st accused, the accused NO. 1 shall realize the loan amount arose out of hypothication. It came to knew the PW9 that,Hypothication loan amount was sum of Rs. 9 lakhs. Same loan amount that the accused NO. 1 got drawn by make use of cheque leaves belonged to the 24 S.C.No. 430/2016 deceased. The accused No. 1 run his Bairaveshwara travel agency at the building of the deceased. Deceased used to tell before the PW9 that travel agency of accused No.1 was under loss. Three months prior to death of the deceased, deceased called the PW9 and told that the accused No.1 demanded money for disael. To that respect the accused NO. 1 beaten and causing bleeding injury to the wife of the deceased and wife of the 1st accused. Two days later after that incident, PW9, Siddegowda and Shivakumar CW8 visited the house of deceased since they were all cordial with the deceased, they were all advice the 1 st accused. On 07.05.2014 at about 9.30 am, the deceased called to the PW9 and told that the accused No.1 physically abused the wife and daughter of the deceased and he pledged the ornaments, therefore, deceased requested the P.W9,you shall come and advice the accused No.1. PW9 response to the deceased, since on that day was the working day, he would come on Sunday. On 09.05.2014 at night 6.30 pm the deceased came and visited the house of PW9 and miserably weeped. When enquired the deceased, the deceased told to 25 S.C.No. 430/2016 PW9 that the accused No.1 failed to realize the loan raised by pledged the ornaments and the accused NO. 1 used to physically abused the wife of the deceased and daughter of the deceased. Then also the PW9 advised to the deceased, he would come on Sunday to the house of deceased and advise the accused No. 1. On 10.05.2014 when the PW9 was taking bath, wife of the PW9 came and gave mobile phone stated that wife of the deceased K.T. Ramachandra calling and there was an urgency. Then, PW9 took the mobile phone, through mobile phone wife of the deceased told that, deceased was committed the suicide by hanging himself at the back side passage of the house. When after got the information, PW9 went to house of the deceased within half an hour. When PW9 visited the house of deceased, dead body of the deceased kept infront of the house of the deceased upon one Divan cot. When PW9 enquired the CW1, CW1 told that after she went and seen on the bedroom, since deceased had not found in the bedroom, there after she went to backside passage of the house and therein she found, deceased had been hanging himself. 26 S.C.No. 430/2016 PW9 asked the CW.1 to show place of incident, CW1 shown the place in which the deceased had been hanging, when on PW9 enquired the CW1, so far death note, CW.1 stated that, no such death note she has found. Then PW9 went near backside passage of the house, at near window there was one cloth cleaning brush. Under that brush PW9 found one typed and signed note. In that spot itself, PW9 and CW1 got read the said note. Then, PW9 advise to CW1 that said note should be preserved and it shall need to produce before the police. Wherein that note, PW9 got the all information that he already depose in the above. PW9 can identify said death note. Said death note got marked as per Ex.P9 and signature of the deceased got marked as per Ex.P9(a). PW9 can identified the signature of deceased as the PW9 knew the deceased from last 14 years. PW9 can identify the photograph which has got upon backside passage of the house. Same photograph got marked as per Ex.P18 and Ex.P19. PW9 also got identified photograph which taken upon dead body of deceased, same photograph already got marked as per Ex.P2. In this respect Vijayanagar police have 27 S.C.No. 430/2016 enquired the PW9. PW9 gave his statement to the police. At his statement, PW9 stated at before the police about his opinion, since the accused No.1 failed to realize the loan amount raised upon house and ornaments as well as ill- treatment caused to wife and daughter of the deceased, the deceased might have committed the suicide. PW9 got identified two ropes, same ropes already got marked as per M.O.1 and 2. PW9 identified the accused Nos. 1 to 3 who stood before the Court. In the cross examination, PW9 unequivocally admitted the suggestion that the PW9 not an blood relative of the deceased. PW9 do not know difference between the deceased and his parents and his sister. It elicited, PW9 not an surety to hypothication of the house belonged to the deceased. In this respect PW9 never at the date visited the bank and enquried the loan agreement. Also elicited, PW9 have not enquired who drawn the loan amount from the account of the deceased. PW9 do not know that the accused NO. 1 and daughter of the deceased have a eight year old boy by name Dhanushgowda and same boy got admitted to the B.G.S. School. PW9 further also do not 28 S.C.No. 430/2016 know the accused NO. 1 and his wife have a second child to a old of one year two months by name Parinitha. Deceased K. T. Ramachandra never at the time stated at before the PW9 as he was suffering with decease of Blood Sugar Militants and Blood pressure. PW9 denied the suggestion that he was not deposed at before the police in his statement that, the accused No.1 run his Byraveshwara travel agency at the house belonged to the deceased. PW1 denied that he has not depose anything in his statement at before the Police that, three months prior to death of the deceased the accused No. 1 have assaulted and caused bleeding injury to the wife of the deceased and daughter of the deceased. PW1 denied the suggestion that he has not deposed anything in his statement at before the Police that, PW1, Siddegowda and Shivakuamr CW8 visited the house of the deceased after two days later when the accused No.1 assaulted the wife and daughter of the deceased. Unequivocally admitted the suggestion, PW9 not deposed anything in his statement at before the police that PW9 got identified the signature of the deceased as he was know the 29 S.C.No. 430/2016 deceased since from 14 years. PW9 unequivocally admitted the suggestion Ex.P9 death note have not been seized by the police at before the PW9. It elicited, PW9 not seen any documents pertains to travel agency run by the accused No.1. PW9 also unequivocally admitted the suggestion that the deceased have not stated anything that the deceased had a different other commitments. Also unequivocally admitted the suggestion the deceased have not stated anything at before the PW9, that the deceased had a other friends in view of said commitments.
19. After go through the records two points would arise before me to analyze the prosecution case. Whether the death of deceased K. T. Ramachandra is one of the unnatural one or not and whether the accused Nos. 1 to 3 gave a abatement to commit the suicide by the deceased. To analyze these facts I answered as below;
20. In order to prove the first point, the prosecution have examined two inquest mahazar witness namely PW3 Krishnegowda and PW4 Thimmaiah. According to the Prosecution PW3 and PW4 are the witnesses to Inquest 30 S.C.No. 430/2016 mahazar which was drawn as per Ex.P4 and signature of PW3 as per Ex.P4(a) and signature of PW4 as per Ex.P4(b). Further the prosecution also examined one K. Venkatesh as PW8, who said to be the Police Sub-Inspector and he conducted the Inquest upon the dead body of deceased K. T. Ramachandra. PW8 got identified the signature available on Ex.P4 Inquest Mahazar as per Ex.P4(c). Perused the Ex.P4. Ex.P4 is one of the document prepared by the complainant police to show the inquest conducted upon the dead body of K. T. Ramachandra. After go through the oral testimony of PW3 and PW4, it evident that PW3 and PW4 turned hostile. Inspite of cross examination nothing has been elicited through the mouth of PW3 and PW4 in support to the prosecution case. After go through the testimony of PW8, it can finds that the testimony of PW8 remains as un challenged, as the defence have not specifically elicited any thing to support the defence and more so the defence have also not disputed the death of deceased K.T. Ramachandra. Further, the defence have also not specifically denied the oral testimony of PW8 pertains to Ex.P4 Inquest and 31 S.C.No. 430/2016 signature as per Ex.P4(c). Records also speaks that the Prosecution in order to prove first issue in fact, the prosecution also got marked three photographs as per Ex.P2, Ex.P17 and Ex.P18. Ex.P2 got marked by the Prosecution through PW2. Ex.P17 and Ex.P18 got marked by the Prosecution through PW7. Perused Ex.P2, Ex.P17 and Ex.P18. Ex.P2, Ex.P17 and Ex.P18 are the photographs which shows the death of deceased K. T. Ramachandra. Further the Prosecution also got marked in its favour one Post Mortem report. Same Post Mortem report is available on record as per Ex.P15. Ex.P15 got marked through PW6 and signature of PW6 as per Ex.P15(a) and Ex.P15(b). PW6 is one of the Doctor who hails from BMCRI Medical collage. PW6 conducted post mortem upon the dead body of the deceased and after he conducted the Post mortem he came to conclusion like that of M.O. 1 and 2 material objects may cause the death of the deceased if the deceased used for hang. According to the deposition of PW6, death of the deceased K. T. Ramachandra was due to Asphyxia as a result of hanging. Even after careful go through the Ex.P15 32 S.C.No. 430/2016 and oral testimony of PW6 nothing has been elicited by the defence to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P15 and oral testimony of PW6. From this observation one thing is evident that one K. T. Ramachandra was died unnaturally and not naturally. Therefore I answered to the first question as affirmative.
21. It is incumbent on part of the Prosecution that, whether the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are responsible for cause death of deceased K. T. Ramachandra. It is the specific case of the Prosecution that, in relating to financial transaction as well as ill-treatment to the wife and daughter of the deceased, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 gave abatement to cause death of deceased K. T. Ramachandra. To ascertain this fact I again go through the records. To substantiate the claim of prosecution, the Prosecution examined one Rathna as PW1 and one Pavitra as PW2. According to the prosecution, PW1 and PW2 are the eye witness to the alleged mental torture gave by the accused Nos. 1 to 3 to the wife and daughter of the deceased K. T. Ramachandra. After go through the testimony of PW1 and PW2, PW1 Rathna though who she 33 S.C.No. 430/2016 was being a wife of deceased K. T. Ramachandra she turned hostile and even cross examined by the Prosecution, nothing have been elicited through the mouth of PW1. Though PW1 got identified the complaint as per Ex.P1 and signature of PW1 as per Ex.P1(a). Despite PW1 turned hostile even lodging of alleged complaint against to accused Nos. 1 to 3. PW2 who she being a daughter of deceased K. T. Ramachandra and wife of the 1 st accused, PW2 also turned hostile. Despite cross examined, nothing has been elicited through the mouth of PW2 to help the case of the Prosecution.
22. At this circumstances I relied on the judgment reported in 2021 (3) KCCR 2620 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench) Mallavva and others vs The State of Karnataka in Crl. Appeal NO. 2605 of 2013 dated 14.06.2021, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that "A. PENAL CODE, 1860-Section 498A and 306 r/w section 34-Acquittal-Accused/in-laws alleged to have ill-treated deceased for one 34 S.C.No. 430/2016 reason or the other-Witnesses did not state nature of ill-treatment- No concrete evidence of cruelty and ill-treatment leading deceased to commit suicide-Prosecution failed to make out ingredients of offences alleged-
Conviction set aside".
Here in this case also the prosecution have not stated anything what nature of ill-treatment that the A1 to A3 alleged to gave except the case of prosecution that, the A1 being a son-in-law of deceased, he harassed the PW1 and PW2 and not to harassed the deceased. Further charge of the prosecution against to the Accused that the A1, failed to honoured his words in so far realized the loan amount.
23. Further the Prosecution also try to prove the case against to the accused Nos. 1 to 3 by scientifically. According to the prosecution, Ex.P9 is one of the death note which was left by the deceased K. T. Ramachandra. Four in number Casual leave application belonged to deceased K. T. Ramachandra as per Ex.P10 to Ex.P13. The Prosecution herein try to compare the signature available on Ex.P9 with 35 S.C.No. 430/2016 admitted signature available on Ex.P10 to Ex.P13 casual leave applications, by sending Ex.P9 death note and four casual leave applications to the Forensic Science Laboratory. To substantiate this fact the Prosecution opted to examined one Dr. Aravindan as PW5. According to oral testimony of PW5, Inspector of Vijaynagar police have sent five sealed covered letters in relating to Cr. No. 214/2014 in a sealed manner on 08.12.2014 for scientific examination. Same covering letter got identified by the PW5 as per Ex.P5. Counter to Ex.P5 the office of PW5 issued a receipt challan as per Ex.P6. After kept opened five sealed covered articles and examined the documents available on sealed covered which was already got marked as per Ex.P5, he came to conclusion that signature available on Ex.P9 death note and signature available on Ex.P10 to Ex.P13 casual leave applications were belonging to the same person, as such he gave one report and same report he got identified as per Ex.P14 and signature of the PW5 as per Ex.P14(a). Despite cross examined by the defence nothing has been elicited through the mouth of PW5 in support to case of defence. 36 S.C.No. 430/2016 Hence the contents of Ex.P5, Ex.P6, Ex.P7, Ex.P8 and Ex.P14 stands proved before this Court by the Prosecution.
24. Now, another one issue in fact arise before me that whether Ex.P9 death note was really left by the deceased K. T. Ramachandra and same was seized by the Investigating officer. Unless prove these facts in issue by the Prosecution, the Prosecution would not to say that the case has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. According to the Prosecution, Ex.P9 death note seized by the Police on that day of incident at beside the dead body of deceased K. T. Ramachandra. When question about to Ex.P9 document, PW1 being a wife of deceased, PW1 turned hostile in total and she also deposed that nothing a death note was available at beside dead body of deceased K. T. Ramachandra. PW2 also took the same stand of PW1 so far Ex.P9 death note stated to be left by the deceased. On the other hand defense have elicited through the mouth of PW8. On go through the Cross examination PW8, PW8 unequivocally admitted the suggestion that he had not drawn any mahazar in so far seizer of death note as per 37 S.C.No. 430/2016 Ex.P9 and further PW8 also unequivocally admitted the suggestion that as per Ex.P9 death note had not been available at beside dead body of the deceased K. T. Ramachandra. But PW8 denied the suggestion planting of Ex.P9 death note to this case. When compare the chief examination of PW8 in so far seizer Ex.P9 death note with the cross examination of PW8 the chief examination of PW8 do not carries any trustworthy value because stands of the PW8 is very clear no seizer mahazar have been drawn upon the death note. As such the Prosecution though prove the signature available on Ex.P9 after compare with the signatures available on Ex.P10 to Ex.P13 casual leave applications, the prosecution failed to prove very root cause of seizer of Ex.P9 death note on that particular day of incident. It is an material doubt create upon the Ex.P9 document, same doubt extends in favour of the accused herein.
25. The counsel for the accused relied on the judgment reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs State of M.P., wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 38 S.C.No. 430/2016 held that "C.Penal Code, 1860-S. 306-Suicide note - Appellant specifically named in suicide note which was otherwise not coherent and reflected disturbed state of mind - There was also evidence on record that the deceased always indulged in drinking and was not doing any work - Suicide note, taken with other circumstances, held, deserved no credence"
26. In another judgment relied by the Counsel for the accused reported in (1997) 6 SCC 171, Vijender Vs State of Delhi, wherein it is held that " A. Evidence Act, 1872 - Ss. 60, 157, and 6 - Hearsay evidence - Offence of kidnapping - Father of the victim stating that the witness gave him the number of the vehicle in which his son was kidnapped and the names of appellants as the kidnappers - Such witness, however, not stating in his evidence that he had seen the appellants kidnapping the boy nor giving the number of the vehicle in which he was kidnapped - Held, evidence of the father victim was hearsay and was not admissible - But his testimony that the witness 39 S.C.No. 430/2016 told him that the boy was kidnapped would be admissible as corroborative evidence under S. 157 of the Evidence Act - S. 6 is not applicable"
27. In another judgment relied by the Counsel for the accused reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs State of West Bengal, wherein it is held that "A. Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 306 and 498A -
Abatement of suicide - Suicide committed due to alleged cruelty and harassment meted out to victim - Guilt of accused - When established - Duty of Court regarding - Need to prove by direct evidence, active role on part of accused in the abetment by direct or indirect act(s) of instigation or by doing of certain act(s) to facilitate the commission of suicide"
28. Further in appreciation of Ex.P9 death note, I meticulously read the same. After go through Ex.P9 death note, not in dispute that the deceased K. T. Ramachandra was one of the typist at Prosecution department. Ex.P9 is one of the death note left by the deceased, same Ex.P9 document got identified through witness PW5 Dr. V. 40 S.C.No. 430/2016 Aravindan. Perused the Ex.P9. Ex.P9 is one of the document print out from the computer and signature of the deceased K. T. Ramachandra as per Ex.P9(a). Perused the EX.P9, EX.P9 is one of the document stated to be prepared by the deceased K T Ramachandra. Even after meticulous examination of the Ex.P9 no specific overt act of the Accused 1 to 3 could be seen and no where in the Ex.P9 speaks anything so far accused are responsible for committing of the suicide, except referring the name of the accused. On plain reading of Ex.P9 it could be seen that there are some recital so far money transaction and family affairs and nowhere in the Ex.P9 reveals any thing so far fact which would attract the ingredients of abatement as described under section 107 of the Indian panel code. Interestingly Ex.P9 bears the attestation as the same document attested by three witnesses. Further as per Ex.P9 death note deceased K.T. Ramachandra was died due to ill- treatment caused by the accused No.1 to the PW1 and PW2 who were said to be respectively wife and daughter of the deceased. Further averments available on Ex.P9 death note 41 S.C.No. 430/2016 that the accused No. 1 raised the loan by pledged the ornaments, car belonged to the deceased and also accused No.1 raised the loan at Anjaneya Cooperative Bank in the name of the deceased. Now the further question before me that whether the prosecution proves its case alleged ill- treatment caused by the accused No.1 to the wife and daughter of deceased. In order to prove such fact the prosecution got examined the wife of the deceased as PW1 and daughter of deceased as PW2. Though PW1 and PW2 examined before the Court, PW1 and PW2 turned hostile and even cross examined by the prosecution, nothing charge attributed material evidence elicited through the mouth of PW1 and PW2. It is true in order to establish the alleged ill-treatment, the prosecution also examined CW7 Venkatrama as PW9. After go through the testimony of PW9, PW9 deposed in his examination in chief that the deceased and the accused NO.1 pledged the house of deceased and raised a loan of Rs. 9 lakhs subject to condition said loan shall be realized by the accused No.1. As the accused No.1 failed to realize the loan the deceased was used to tell 42 S.C.No. 430/2016 about the same thing at before the PW9. Whereas in the cross examination it elicited through the mouth of PW9 that, the same is here extracted;
" ಮಮತನನ ತನನ ಮನನಯನನನ ಅಡಮಮನ ಮಮಡದ ವವವಹಮರಕನಕ ನಮನನನನನ ಶಶವರಟ ಆಗರಲಲಲ.
ಈ ಸಸಬಸಧವಮಗ ನಮನನ ಎಸದಗಶ ಬಮವಸಕಕ ಗನ ಭನನಟ ಕನಶಟಟರನವವದಲಲ ಮತನತ ಬಮವಸಕಕ ಲನಶನನಕ ಅಗಗಮಸಟಕ ನನನ ಪರಶನಲಸರನವವದಲಲ. ಸದರ ಅಡಮಮನ ಹಣವನನನ ಬಮಸಕಕ ನಸದ ಯಮರನ ಡಮಗ ಮಮಡಕನಶಸಡರನತಮತರನ ಎಸದನ ಪರಶನಲಸರನವವದಲಲ" .
29. With this sort of depositions of PW9 it evident, PW9 never to be eye witness to the alleged loan transaction and ill-treatment caused by the accused No.1 to the wife and daughter of the deceased. No doubt after go through the testimony of PW9, the stand of the PW9 in the case on hand is one of the hearsay witness to the alleged loan transaction and ill-treatment. As such under Indian evidence act hearsay evidence is not an substantive piece of evidence the same can be used only for corroboration. Here in this case, PW1 and PW2 are the eye witness to the alleged loan transaction and ill-treatment. But PW1 and PW2 have not stated anything against to the accused in so far alleged ill- 43 S.C.No. 430/2016 treatment. It is pertinent to note that, case of the prosecution alleged ill-treatment caused by the A1 to A3 to the PW1 and PW2 and not to the deceased.
30. When after further scrutinize the Ex.P9 death note along with testimony of PW9, as per the testimony of PW9, PW9 came to knew through the deceased that the A1 pledged the house property to a tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- subject to covenant A1 shall realized the said loan. When compare this an version with the version of Ex.P9 death note, no where in the Ex.P9 death note recited anything that such house property was kept pledged to a tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- rather Ex.P9 death note speaks that, the A1 pledged the ornaments and car belonged to the deceased. Further as per Ex.P9 recital, Accused No.1 raised the loan in the name of deceased at Anjeneya Cooperative Bank Ltd. Therefore here in this fact also prosecution stands is very much contradictions in so far alleged loan. Further investigation have also very much silent in so far alleged loan transaction. If really the loan transaction took place upon the house of deceased as contended by the Police, it 44 S.C.No. 430/2016 no difficulty to investing officer, investigate the same factum in a prospective manner and to brought forth the same on the record. As such the same deficiency of the investigation creates doubt upon the prosecution case, the same doubt is here extended in favor of accused. Hence, I have answered point No.2 in the negative.
31. Point No.2: - In view of the reasons discussed in Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are acquitted in respect of the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC.
The earlier bond and surety bond shall be continued for period of 6 months from today in compliance of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C, in anticipation any notice of any appeal or petition filed against the Judgment of this court.
M.O.1 and M.O.2 Ropes which are worthless hereby ordered to 45 S.C.No. 430/2016 destroyed after lapse of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, printout taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 4th day of December, 2021).
(R. ONKARAPPA) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Prosecution side:-
P.W.1 Rathna
P.W.2 Pavitra
P.W.3 Krishnegowda
P.W.4 Thimmaiah
P.W.5 Dr. V. Aravindan
P.W.6 Dr. CC. N. Sumangala
P.W.7 H. B. Sanjeev Gowda
P.W.8 K. Venkatesh
P.W.9 Venkatarama
(b) Defence Side: NIL
2. List of exhibits marked on behalf of :
(a) Prosecution side:-
46 S.C.No. 430/2016
Ex.P1 Complaint
Ex.P1(a) Signature in complaint
Ex.P1(b) Signature in complainant
Ex.P2 Photo
Ex.P3 Statement
Ex.P4 Inquest report
Ex.P4(a) Signature Inquest report
Ex.P4(b) Signature Inquest report
Ex.P4(c) Signature Inquest report
Ex.P5 Covering letter
Ex.P6 Acknowledgment
Ex.P7 Certificate of examination
Ex.P7(a) Signature in Certificate of examination
Ex.P7(b) Signature in Certificate of examination
Ex.P8 Enlarged signature
Ex.P8(a) Signature
Ex.P9 Death Note
Ex.P9(a) Signature
Ex.P10 Request letter
Ex.P10(a) Signature
Ex.P11 Request letter
Ex.P11(a) Signature
Ex.P12 Request letter
Ex.P12 Signature
Ex.P13 Request letter
Ex.P13(a) Signature
Ex.P14 Reason for opinion
Ex.P14(a) Signature
Ex.P15 PM report
Ex.P15(a) Signature
Ex.P15(b) Signature
Ex.P16 Seal
Ex.P16(a) Signature
Ex.P17 Photo
Ex.P18 Photo
Ex.P19 FIR
Ex.P19(a) Signature
(b) Defence Side: - NIL -
47 S.C.No. 430/2016
3. List of material objects: -NIL-
(R. ONKARAPPA)
LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.