Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Alan Sandeep @ Alan on 4 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.61)
Dated this the 4th day of January 2016
PRESENT :
Sri B.Jayantha Kumar, B.A., Law, LL.M.
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No.920 / 2013
COMPLAINANT :- The State of Karnataka,
By R.T.Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs
ACCUSED:- Alan Sandeep @ Alan
S/o Felix Able
Aged about 25 years,
R/o No.118/3, 1st Floor
By the side of Shality Apartment
Near Kacharakanahalli Bus-stop
Saint Thomas Town Post
Hennur Main Road
Bengaluru Town.
(By Sri N.Devaraj, DMS Associates, Advocates)
Date of offence From 06.02.2011 to 19.01.2012
Date of report of offence 19.01.2012
Name of the complainant Lakshmamma
Date of commencement of 14.05.2014
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 23.10.2014
2 S.C. No. 920/2013
Offences complained of Sec. 306 of IPC
Opinion of the Judge Accused is found not guilty
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by By Sri N.Devaraj, DMS Associates,
Advocates
JUDGMENT
Accused is charged and prosecuted for the offence punishable U/s.306 of I.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:-
Deceased Savitha and accused were loving each other and with the consent of both the families, engagement was performed on 6.2.2011 and after two months of the engagement, the accused and his mother asked the complainant to come to her house to hold marriage talk and at that time, they demanded a sum of Rs.3 to 4 lakhs for marriage expenses and directed to perform the marriage in a grand manner and the complainant expressed her inability to pay so much of amount and she told that she is in a position to pay only Rs.50,000/-. But the accused and his mother insisted the 3 S.C. No. 920/2013 complainant to pay at least Rs.1,50,000/- and thereafter the accused started sending SMS and abusing the deceased in vulgar language and also started suspecting her character and demanding amount and abused the complainant as she is prostitute and then the deceased attempted to commit suicide by hanging herself in the house of complainant by using chudidar veil on 19.1.2012 at 2.00 p.m due to the abetment made by the accused and the deceased died on 20.1.2012 at 7.15 p.m while taking treatment at Baptist Hospital, Bengaluru.
3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by complainant Smt.Lakshmamma, the mother of the deceased, R.T.Nagar police registered a case in Cr.No.23/2012 and took up investigation and went to the spot of occurrence, drew mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses and conducted inquest mahazar and subjected dead body to Post Mortem examination and obtained P.M. report and seized the veil and death note by drawing mahazar and after recording the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation 4 S.C. No. 920/2013 formalities, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 306 of IPC.
4. During the course of investigation, the police arrested accused on 23.1.2012 and recorded his voluntary statement and produced before the Magistrate and he was remanded to J.C. and subsequently, the accused moved for regular bail petition before FTC-VIII, Bengaluru by filing petition in Crl.Misc.No.577/2012 and got regular bail on 16.2.2012 and accordingly, he was released on bail. On submission of charge sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned magistrate and after complying the provisions of section 207 of Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate committed the case to the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for trial. On receipt of the entire committal record, this case was numbered as S.C.No.920/2013 and made over to this court for disposal in accordance with law. After receipt of the records, this court secured the presence of the accused by issuing summons. The matter was heard before charge. As the reasonable grounds existed, charge was framed, read over and 5 S.C. No. 920/2013 explained to the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 306 of IPC and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution altogether examined 07 witnesses as PW1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P1, Ex.P.2, Ex.P.2(a), Ex.P.3, Ex.P.4, Ex.P.4(a) (b), Ex.P.5 and 5(a) and Ex.P.6 and M.O.1 and closed its side. After conclusion of trial, statement of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. Accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence. Accused examined his mother as DW1 and got marked Ex.D.1 and 2.
6. Heard the arguments of Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.
7. The following points arise for my determination;
1. Whether the prosecution proves that Savitha, the daughter of complainant has committed suicide?
6 S.C. No. 920/2013
2. Whether the prosecution proves that said commission of suicide was consequence of abetment made by the accused?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 306 IPC?
4. What order?
8. My finding on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the affirmative
Point No.2 : In the negative
Point No.3 : In the negative
Point No.4 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1:- Criminal law set into motion on the complaint lodged by Smt.Lakshmamma, the mother of deceased Savitha. In the complaint, it is alleged that her daughter has committed suicide. The witnesses on record clearly deposed that Savitha has committed suicide by hanging 7 S.C. No. 920/2013 herself in her house by using chudidar veil. Ex.P.5 is inquest mahazar. Post mortem report is wrongly marked as Ex.P.5 instead of Ex.P.6. Dr.Nagaraj examined as PW7. In his evidence, he has deposed that Savitha has committed suicide. As per Ex.P.6 post mortem report, the death was due to "coma as a result of cerebral anoxia consequent". According to the prosecution, Savitha has committed suicide. So there is no dispute with regard to the death of Savitha. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.
10. Point No.2 and 3:- It is the case of the prosecution that the accused and deceased Savitha were loving each other and with the consent of both the families, engagement was performed on 6.2.2011 and after two months of engagement, the accused and his mother called the complainant and deceased Savitha to their house and demanded a sum of Rs.3 to 4 lakhs towards marriage expenses and directed them to perform the marriage in grand manner. The complainant had expressed her inability to pay so much of amount and she had agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- only, but the 8 S.C. No. 920/2013 accused and his mother insisted the complainant to pay at least Rs.1,50,000/- and thereafter accused started sending SMS to the deceased and abusing her in vulgar language and he started suspecting her character and demanding amount and abusing her in vulgar language as she is prostitute and due to this act of the accused, Savitha committed suicide by hanging herself in her house by using chudidar veil and though she was admitted to Baptist Hospital, she died on 20.1.2012. So, in Ex.P.1 complaint, the complainant has alleged that this accused is responsible for the commission of suicide by Savitha and he has instigated and abeted the deceased to commit suicide.
11. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the prosecution has examined almost 07 witnesses and all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and though PW1, PW2 and PW4 are mother and brothers of the deceased, have clearly deposed that Savitha has committed suicide because of the dowry demand and because of vulgar language used by him suspecting her character and therefore, the prosecution is able to prove the ingredients of Sec.306 of 9 S.C. No. 920/2013 IPC and Ex.P.3 is the death note written by the deceased which was seized by the police, clearly establishes that there was dowry demand from the accused and the accused himself has instigated and abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He has argued that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.306 of IPC and therefore, prayed for convicting the accused for the alleged offence.
12. Learned counsel for the accused has argued that though the prosecution has examined witnesses, they are close relatives of the deceased and there is no dowry demand from the accused and as per the contents of complaint, the accused demanded the marriage expenses and not the dowry and the prosecution has not proved by producing cogent evidence that the accused sent SMS and used vulgar language that the deceased is a prostitute and the accused has not abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide and there is no direct evidence on record to show the involvement of accused in the 10 S.C. No. 920/2013 commission of offence. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the following decisions;
1) (2011)3 SCC 626 (M.Mohan Vs. State represented by the Dy.S.P.)
2) (2010)1 SCC 750 (Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh)
3) (2011)2 SCC (Cri) 465 (S.S.Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another)
4) (2010)1 SCC 707 (Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal)
5) AIR 2008 SC 2108 (Sohan Raj Sharma Vs. State of Haryana)
6) (2012)3 SCC (Cri) 287 (Rohtash Vs. State of Haryana)
7) AIR 2004 SC 2790 (Hans Raj Vs. State of Haryana)
8) AIR 1973 SC 2773 (Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh)
9) (2013)6 SCC 417 (Lahu Kamlakar Patil and another Vs. State of Maharashtra) I have gone through the above decisions cited by the learned counsel for accused. Let me analyse the principles laid down in these decisions one by one.
13. In the decision reported in (2011)3 SCC 626 (M.Mohan Vs. State represented by the Dy.S.P.); (2010)1 SCC 11 S.C. No. 920/2013 750 (Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh); (2011)2 SCC (Cri) 465 (S.S.Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another) and (2010)1 SCC 707 (Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principles;
"Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
The intention of the legislature and the ration of the cases decided by this court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide." 12 S.C. No. 920/2013
In the said decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any strait jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances."
In the said decisions, Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the concept of "abetment". Section 306 of IPC deals with 'abetment of suicide' which reads as follows:-
306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
In the said decisions, Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the meaning of the word "Suicide" as follows:- 13 S.C. No. 920/2013
'The word "suicide" in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however, its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. "Sui" means "self" and "cide" means "killing", thus implying an act of self- killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has also dealt with definition of "abetment of a thing" defined U/s.107 of the Code, which reads as follows;
"107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who -
First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; 14 S.C. No. 920/2013
or Thirdly - Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with section 107 reads as under:
"Explanation 2 - Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773 (Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh) held as follows;
"In a criminal trial the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the different ingredients of the offence and unless it discharges that onus, the prosecution cannot succeed. The court may, of course, presume, as mentioned in section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the 15 S.C. No. 920/2013 existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with, the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable 16 S.C. No. 920/2013 doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding. the guilt of the accused should be reasonable, it is not the doubt of a mind which is either-so vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take things to their natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations.
Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy, on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.
The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the 17 S.C. No. 920/2013 evidence brought on record. Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused. Reference is sometimes made to the clash of public interest and that of the individual accused. The conflict in this respect, in our opinion, is more apparent than real.
It is no doubt true that wrongful acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The consequences of the conviction of an innocent person are far more serious and its reverberations cannot but be felt in a civilized society. All this highlights the importance of ensuring, as far as possible, that there should be no wrongful conviction of an innocent person. Some risk of the conviction of the innocent, of course, is always there in any system of the administration of criminal justice. Such a risk can be minimised but not ruled out altogether. 18 S.C. No. 920/2013
15. Having regard to the aforesaid principles, I may now advert to the facts of this case. Ex.P.1 is the complaint lodged by Smt.Lakshmamma, the mother of the deceased. In her complaint, she has alleged that there was love affair between her daughter Savitha and accused Allan and marriage engagement was taken place on 6.2.2011 with the mutual understanding between the two families and after two months of the engagement, the accused Allan and his parents called them to their house and she went to the house of the accused and at that time, the accused and his parents demanded Rs.3 to 4 lakhs and asked them to perform the marriage in grand manner. She has further stated that already she told the parents of the accused that she is not in a position to perform the marriage in grand manner and she would perform the marriage in simple manner and she had agreed to pay Rs.50,000/-, but the accused and his parents demanded Rs.1,50,000/-. She has further stated in the complaint that after some days, the accused used to send SMS and call Savitha over phone and used to abuse her in vulgar language 19 S.C. No. 920/2013 and started harassing her and he has also suspected her character and abused her and her daughter Savitha as prostitute and after 15 days, the accused came to her house and demanded money and told that he would marry Savitha only if they pay the amount. She has further stated that her daughter sent SMS to the accused that she kept ready an amount of Rs.30,000/- and thereafter committed suicide. She has stated that her daughter Savitha committed suicide because of the harassment given by the accused abusing her in filthy language and suspecting her character and therefore, she requested the police authority to take appropriate action against the accused. On the basis of this complaint, police registered a case for the offence punishable U/Sec. 306 of IPC.
16. On bare reading of the complaint, it reveals that the accused has not demanded any dowry amount from the complainant. The accused and his parents requested the complainant to perform the marriage in grand manner and it requires Rs.3 to 4 lakhs and finally they demanded Rs.1,50,000/- as marriage expenses, but the complainant 20 S.C. No. 920/2013 agreed to pay only Rs.50,000/-. The complaint further reveals that the accused used to send SMS to Savitha abusing her in vulgar language and suspecting her character and abused her as prostitute. These are the two allegations on which the police registered a case alleging that accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
17. Now let me go through the evidence adduced by the prosecution. CW1 Lakshmamma examined as PW1. In her chief examination, she has specifically deposed that after the engagement, the accused and his parents called her to their house and asked to pay dowry of Rs.3 to 4 lakhs. Demanding of dowry of Rs.3 to 4 lakhs is not absent in the complaint. She has further deposed that they gave gold ring of 08 grams to the accused at the time of engagement. She has further deposed that the accused used to abuse her daughter in vulgar language by saying that she has illicit relationship with other persons. This aspect is missing in the complaint. She has further deposed that the accused gave one ring to her daughter at the time of engagement and subsequently, he taken back 21 S.C. No. 920/2013 the said gold ring from her daughter. During the course of cross-examination, she has deposed that she borrowed Rs.1,00,000/ lakh from one Kulkarni for the purpose of engagement. But in the complaint, she has not stated that she borrowed loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from Kulkarni and spent amount of Rs.1,00,000/- Lakh for engagement. The complaint is silent about the expenses made by the complainant to the engagement of her daughter. During the course of cross- examination, she has admitted that the mother of the accused informed her that she booked St.Patric Community Hall, Museum Road, Bengaluru for the marriage on 18.05.2011 by giving advance. She has also admitted that the mother of the accused again fixed the marriage on 12.10.2011 in above said community hall. This evidence clearly establishes that the marriage hall was fixed by the mother of the accused. Once the marriage was fixed on 18.5.2011, but marriage was not performed. Again the marriage was fixed on 12.10.2011. There is no averment in the complaint and evidence that the marriage hall charge was paid by the complainant. As admitted by PW1, 22 S.C. No. 920/2013 the marriage hall was fixed by the mother of the accused by paying the advance amount.
18. CW5 Govindaraju has been examined as PW2. Govindaraju is the brother of deceased Savitha. In his evidence, he has deposed that the engagement was performed on 6.2.2012 at Ginger Hotel. He has further stated that the engagement expense was fully borne by them. PW1 has not stated in her evidence that they have borne the engagement expenses. He has further deposed that he, his brother, mother and sister-in-law went to the house of the accused to hold marriage talks and the accused demanded Rs.3 to 4 lakhs. But in the complaint, it is stated that the complainant alone went to the house of the accused. He has further stated that the accused used to abuse his mother as prostitute, so also the sister. He has further deposed that the accused used to threaten his sister that he would kill her if she enters his life. This aspect is missing in the complaint as well as in the evidence of PW1. He has further deposed that the accused and his parents are responsible for the death of his sister. Though 23 S.C. No. 920/2013 there is allegation in the complaint that the amount was demanded by accused and his parents, but the parents are not arrayed as accused in this case. He has further deposed that he found a death note in the vanity bag of his sister and police seized the death note dt.23.1.2002 by drawing mahazar Ex.P.4 and the alleged death note is marked as Ex.P.3. During the course of cross-examination, he has denied that he gave statement before the police that they opposed the marriage of deceased and accused and later gave consent. This portion is marked as Ex.D.1. Further he has denied that he gave statement before the police that he and his mother went to the house of accused and at that time, the accused asked to perform the marriage in grand manner and it requires Rs.3 to 4 lakhs and his mother agreed to pay Rs.50,000/-, but the accused demanded Rs.1,50,000/-. This portion is marked as Ex.D.2. He has further deposed that he handed over the death note Ex.P.3 and two note books containing hand-writing of his sister to the police. He has further admitted that he did not 24 S.C. No. 920/2013 hand over the mobile to the police to show the messages sent by the accused.
19. CW6 Prasadini Shetty has been examined as PW3. She has deposed that the complainant Lakshmamma is working as maid servant in her house since 20 years. She has deposed that after the engagement, she went to the house of complainant and at that time, the parents of the accused and aunt of the accused were present and they demanded dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-. This is entirely different version. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused and his parents called the complainant to their house and demanded money of Rs.3 to 4 lakhs. But as per the version of PW3, when she went to the house of complainant, the parents of the accused and his aunt were present and demanded dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-. She has further deposed that after one year of engagement, the accused called the deceased over phone from morning to afternoon and harassed her, therefore, deceased took half day leave and committed suicide. There is material improvement in 25 S.C. No. 920/2013 the evidence of prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 is in no way helpful to the prosecution.
20. CW3 Mohan Kumar has been examined as PW4 who is brother of deceased. In his chief examination, he has deposed that the accused came to their house 20 days prior to the death of his sister and told that he is loving deceased Savitha and asked them to perform their marriage. He has further deposed that when his mother and sister went to the house of the accused, they demanded Rs.3 to 4 lakhs to perform the marriage. He has further deposed that they spent Rs.1,50,000/- for the engagement of Savitha and accused. PW1 and 2 have not stated that they spent Rs.1,50,000/- for the engagement. During the course of cross-examination, he has deposed that after engagement, his sister and mother went to the house of the accused for marriage talk. But according to PW2, he went along with his mother and sister to the house of the accused. So there are contradictions in the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4.
26 S.C. No. 920/2013
21. CW8 Raghavendra has been examined as PW5 who is the class mate of deceased Savitha. He has deposed that once the deceased Savitha introduced the accused and told that she loves the accused. He has deposed that the parents of the deceased did not agree for the marriage and subsequently agreed for the marriage and performed the engagement. He has further deposed that the deceased asked him not to telephone him as accused would suspect her character. The evidence of PW5 is not of much importance, because he has not stated about the SMS sent by accused making harassment and using vulgar language to abuse her.
22. CW15 Chethan Singh has been examined as PW6. PW6 is mahazar witness Ex.P.4. He has deposed that the police seized the death note Ex.P.3 from the brother of the deceased. During the course of cross-examination, he has deposed that he is the friend of Govindaraju.
27 S.C. No. 920/2013
23. CW18 Dr.Nagaraj has been examined as PW7. PW7 is the doctor who conducted Post Mortem examination and submitted report at Ex.P.6.
24. In support of the defence of the accused, he examined his mother as DW1. In her evidence, she has deposed that the accused used to spend his salary for self and his friend Savitha. She has further deposed that she agreed for the marriage of her son with deceased Savitha and after discussion with the parents of deceased Savitha, they decided to perform the engagement and she and her husband and accused spent amount and booked marriage hall and one day Savitha came and agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- and marriage was booked in St.Patric community hall on 18.5.2011 and her husband agreed to spend for the marriage lunch and after ten days, Savitha telephoned and told that she is not ready for the marriage and hence, she changed the marriage date from 18.5.2011 to 12.10.2011 and on 12.10.2011, the marriage was not performed and in the last week of September, Savitha came to her house and handed over the saree and ring and 28 S.C. No. 920/2013 told that she is not ready for marriage. She has further deposed that they have not compelled Savitha to convert into Christian community and she voluntarily converted to Christian community. She has further deposed that when she informed the mother of Savitha regarding return of saree and ring, she told that when she is not willing why we have to compel her to marry and thereafter she has committed suicide. She has further deposed that since the family members of Savitha depending on the income of Savitha, there was so much pressure on Savitha and the brothers of Savitha were not agreed for the marriage of Savitha with the accused. Though the learned Public Prosecutor has cross-examined DW1, nothing has been elicited from her mouth to disbelieve her evidence. Therefore, on perusing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is clear that there are so many contradictions and infirmities and the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
25. From the entire material available on record, by no stretch of imagination the offence U/s.306 of IPC was made out 29 S.C. No. 920/2013 against the accused. PW3 was confronted with his statement recorded by the police U/s.161 of Cr.P.C. Though Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 marked during the course of cross-examination and said statement is not proved by confronting to the investigating officer, because I.O. has not appeared before this court in spite of repeated summons and warrant issued by this court through Deputy Commissioner of Police and through e-mail. This court also issued salary attachment against CW20, but he remained absent and therefore, the evidence of I.O. is not available in this case. It is not the case of prosecution that the deceased was provoked by accused to end her life by hanging herself by using chudidar veil. On a close and careful scrutiny of prosecution evidence, it is clear that except the complaint Ex.P.1, there is no other document to show that the accused directly instigated and provoked the deceased to commit suicide.
26. It is true that the prosecution has produced one document alleged to be the death note of the deceased Savitha. This death note does not contain the signature of the 30 S.C. No. 920/2013 deceased. The police took signature of one Anil Kumar who is cited as CW14, but he has not been examined in this case. Further PW2 has stated that he has handed over the death note along with two note books containing hand-writing of Savitha. But the police have not sent the alleged death note Ex.P.3 and the note books containing hand-writing of the deceased Savitha to the hand-writing experts for comparison. So, there is no evidence on record to show that Ex.P.3 death note is in the hand writing of deceased Savitha. In Ex.P.3, the deceased Savitha has not made any allegation that the accused has demanded dowry of Rs.3 to 4 lakhs. In the alleged death note, she has stated that the accused is keeping distance from her after the engagement and the parents of the accused wanted only money. It is further stated in the alleged death note that accused is having another girl in his life and he is doubting her and therefore, she wants to commit suicide. In Ex.P.3, it is not stated that the accused used to send SMS and abusing her in vulgar language and abused as prostitute. Therefore even if Ex.P.3 is considered as death note of 31 S.C. No. 920/2013 deceased Savitha, the contents of Ex.P.3 in no way helpful to the prosecution to prove that the accused has instigated, provoked and abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The police have not seized the mobile phone of the deceased to show that the accused used to send SMS to her suspecting her character and using vulgar language. All these aspects clearly show and demonstrate that there are no elements of cruelty or harassment meted by the accused and the witnesses have improved upon their earlier statements and the I.O. has not appeared before the court and the accused has no opportunity to cross-examine the I.O. as to why he has not sent the alleged death note to the expert to compare the hand-writing of the deceased and why I.O. has not seized the mobile and collected the SMS sent by the accused to the deceased and thereby harassing her and coerced her to commit suicide. From the available evidence, I do not find the intention of the accused or mens rea to provoke, incite or encourage the deceased to commit suicide. With these observations and keeping in view of the principles laid down in the decisions cited by the learned 32 S.C. No. 920/2013 counsel for accused, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. In this case, the defence of the accused that the deceased might have committed suicide as her parents did not agree for her marriage and her conversion to Christian community and therefore, the marriage was postponed and this was caused hurt to her feelings and she might have committed suicide. Therefore in the absence of cogent and satisfactory evidence on record to show that the accused is directly responsible for the act of suicide committed by the deceased, this court cannot convict the accused for the alleged offence and accordingly, I answer Point No.2 and 3 in the Negative.
33 S.C. No. 920/2013
27. Point No.4:- In view of my findings on point No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C.
The bail bonds executed by Accused during the course of trial stand cancelled.
M.O.1 chudidar veil is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to Judgment writer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 4th day of January 2016) (B.Jayantha Kumar) LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE:
List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
P.W.1 Laxmamma
P.W.2 Govindaraju
P.W.3 Prasadini Shetty
P.w.4 Mohan Kumar
P.w.5 Raghavendra
P.w.6 Chethan Singh
P.w.7 Dr.Nagaraj
34 S.C. No. 920/2013
List of witnesses examined for the defence:
D.w.1 Mariya Shantha Joan
Nil
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.2 Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.3 Death Note (two pages) Ex.P.4 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.4(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.4(b) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.5 Inquest mahazar Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.5 Post Mortem Report Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW7
List of documents exhibited on behalf of defence:
Ex.D.1 Portion of evidence marked in the
statement of Govindaraju
Ex.D.2 Portion of evidence marked in the
statement of Govindaraju
List of M.O. marked for the prosecution:
M.O1 chudidar veil (two pieces)
LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Rrt*