Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 Suresh on 10 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 10 th DAY OF MARCH, 2021
PRESENT
Smt. SANDHYA S., M.A., LL.B. (spl.)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C.No.577/2017
Complainant The State of Karnataka
Vyalikaval P S,
Bengaluru.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
-V/s-
Accused No.1 Suresh,
S/o Munikrishna,
Aged about 32 years
Accused No.2 Champa Kumari,
W/o E.Munikrishna,
Aged about 65 years
Accused No.3 E.Munikrishna,
S/o Yathiraju Naidu,
Aged about 70 years
Accused No.4 Mahesh,
S/o Munikrishna,
Aged about 33 years
Accused No.5 Aishwarya,
W/o Mahesh,
Aged about 28 years
2 S.C.No.577/2017
All are R/at No,50, 2nd
Cross, 1st Mainroad,
Vyalikaval, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.T.K.Suresh)
Date of offence 10.09.2016
Date of report of offence 10.09.2016
Name of the Nagendra
complainant
Date of commencement 27.03.2018
of recording of evidence
Date of closing of 22.11.2019
evidence
Offences complained of Sec.498A, 306 r/w 34
of Indian Penal Code
Opinion of the Judge Accused persons not
found guilty
State represented by Learned Public
Prosecutor
Accused defended by By Sri.T.K.Suresh,
Advocate.
*********
J UD GME N T This case is the result of charge sheet filed by the complainant Police, Vyalikaval Police Station against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3 S.C.No.577/2017
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that the complainant C.W.1 Nagendra, who is brother of the deceased Smt. Malini, registered the case against the accused persons as per Cr.No.143/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Further it is alleged that the deceased Malini was given in marriage to accused No.1 on 27.08.2015 and she was staying along with accused No.1 and other accused persons, in Vyalikaval Police station jurisdiction, at No.50, 2nd Cross, 1st Mainroad, Vyalikaval. That at the time of marriage, parents of the deceased Malini had given 200 gms gold ornaments to the deceased and 100gms gold ornaments to accused No.1. That after 3 months of marriage, the accused persons used to pick up quarrel 4 S.C.No.577/2017 for petty reasons and were harassing the deceased mentally and physically. That after 6 months of marriage, accused persons have asked the deceased to get Rs.5,00,000/- to purchase new house and C.W.1 and 5 have gone to house of accused persons and given amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in April 2016. That accused persons doubted the fidelity of the deceased and used to harass her for talking on her mobile phone. That without bearing with the ill-treatment and harassment by the accused persons on 10.09.2016 in the house of accused persons, deceased committed suicide by tying a saree to the fan and hanging herself. Hence, the accused persons have abetted the deceased to commit suicide by subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty instigating her to die and thereby the accused committed the offence as alleged.
3. As discussed herein above, on the complaint of C.W.1 Nagendra, the brother of the deceased, the 5 S.C.No.577/2017 complainant police registered this case and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused before the learned Magistrate. At the initial stage the accused persons was arrested and later were released on bail.
4. In pursuance of service of summons, the accused persons appeared through their counsel before the learned Magistrate and got enlarged on bail. The learned Magistrate furnished copy of charge sheet to the accused persons and hence, the provision of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. was complied with. As the offences charge sheeted against the accused persons is exclusively triable by sessions court, the learned Magistrate acting under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. has committed the case to Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru, and later Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru, has sent this case to this Court for trial and hence, the matter is taken up before this Court accordingly for 6 S.C.No.577/2017 further proceedings. The accused was already on bail and later was present before this court.
5. My predecessor had framed charge against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code on 23.12.2017, to which accused persons have pleaded not guilty and thereby they have claimed to be tried for the said offences.
6. In support of the case of prosecution out of the 29 witness cited in the charge sheet, 10 witnesses are examined as P.W.1 to P.W.10. The prosecution has produced 14 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and 7 Material Objects, which are marked as M.O.1 to M.O.7. After closing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court has recorded the statement of accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which the accused persons have denied the incriminating materials forthcoming against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as false. 7 S.C.No.577/2017 Further the accused persons have not chosen to submit any defense evidence nor produced any document on their behalf.
7. Perused all the oral and documentary evidence on record. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that after the marriage of the deceased on 27.8.2015 with accused no.1, while residing along with accused persons in matrimonial house, they have demanded dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- and gave physical and mental harassment to the deceased and thereby accused persons have committed the offence punishable u/ sec. 498A r/w 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased without bearing with the ill-
treatment and harassment of accused persons to bring dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- from her parental house, on 10.09.2016 had committed suicide by tying a saree to the ceiling fan and the accused persons have abetted the deceased to commit suicide and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable u/section 306 r/w 34 of IPC?
8 S.C.No.577/2017
3. What order?
8. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and on considering all the oral and documentary evidence on record, my findings on the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1: In the negative
Point No.2: In the negative
Point No.3: As per final order
for the following:
:R E A S O N S:
9. Points No.1 & 2: Both these points are taken up for consideration together for convenience and also for avoiding repetition of discussion on the facts of the case and also regarding point of law. As per the canon of criminal jurisprudence of our nation, prosecution has to bring home the alleged guilt of accused persons with production of cogent and satisfactory evidence. As stated herein above, it is not in dispute that the complainant C.W.1 Nagendra, is the brother of the deceased.
9 S.C.No.577/2017
10. The offence charged against the accused is punishable under Section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, unless the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that when the deceased was residing with the accused persons, the accused persons have given harassment both mental and physical to the deceased and instigated her to die and thereby the accused persons have subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty and thereafter without bearing with such ill-treatment by the accused persons, the deceased committed suicide by tying a saree to the ceiling fan, no case can be made out against the accused persons for the offence charged. In this background, the evidence forthcoming from the prosecution should be considered for proving the offences charged against the accused persons.
11. Heard the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor, that this case is pertaining to offences 498A, 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Further that in all, 10 10 S.C.No.577/2017 witness have been examined and 14 exhibits marked and 7 material objects has been marked. Usually family and relatives come to give evidence, as it is known only to relatives and family members. Hostile witness cannot be neglected. Thus the accused has to be convicted for the offenses charged and hence the accused persons be convicted for the said offences is the argument of the Learned Public Prosecutor.
12. Heard the argument of the defence counsel, Sri.T.K.Suresh, Advocate, who has vehemently argued stating that P.W.1,2,4 to 7 have turned hostile and no independent witness is examined by the prosecution. Further argued that the citations be considered. Further that the deposition of the official witnesses cannot be sole criteria for conviction. That the deposition does not bring in ambit of Section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Hence, the accused persons be acquitted for the said offences is the argument of the defense counsel.
11 S.C.No.577/2017
13. As stated herein above, the prosecution was set into motion against the accused persons on the complaint of C.W.1 Nagendra, the son of late Ramesh, who is brother of the deceased Malini, registered the case against the accused as per Cr.No.143/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the accused persons abetted the deceased to commit suicide by subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty instigating her to die and thereby the accused persons committed the offence as alleged.
14. On going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, it reveals that P.W.1 is one Nagendra who is the cousin brother of the deceased Malini. He states that C.W.2 is his father, C.W.9 and 10 are his sisters. That the deceased is his aunt's 12 S.C.No.577/2017 daughter, accused No.1 is husband of deceased, accused No.2 and 3 are parents of accused No.1, accused No.4 and 5 are brother and sister-in-law of accused No.1. That the accused persons were staying in Vyalikaval. That 2 years before the deceased was married to accused No.1 and she was staying with accused persons. That accused No.1 was working at Net company and at the time of marriage 150 gms gold ornaments was given to the deceased and 50gms gold ornaments to accused No.1. That around 8-9 years from now, accused No.5 called brother of P.W.1 and informed that Malini had committed suicide and was taken to hospital. That by the time witness reached hospital, deceased had succumbed. That the witness went to police station and gave complaint. The complaint is marked as Ex.P.1 and signature as Ex.P1(a). That he does not know the offense charge sheeted on accused persons. That he was present at the time of spot mahazar and signed the mahazar. 13 S.C.No.577/2017 Mahazar is marked as Ex.P.2 and signature as Ex.P.2(a). That he does not know what is written in Mahazar and complaint. That he doubted that accused persons would have killed the deceased and gave the complaint. This witness turned hostile and later learned Public Prosecutor was granted permission to cross-examine the witness and during the cross-examination of this witness he has denied all the suggestions put to him by the learned Public Prosecutor.
15. On considering this witness who is the complainant and brother of the deceased, has taken different stands in the case. Witness deposing that he does not know what is written in Mahazar and complaint and that he doubted that accused persons would have killed the deceased and gave the complaint and P.W.1 turning hostile, raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. The men's rea for driving the deceased to commit suicide has to be established 14 S.C.No.577/2017 by the evidence of the material witness and corroborated. Hence, the evidence of this witness has to be corroborated with the evidence of the other material witness to prove the charges framed against the accused persons and the abetment of the accused persons in the case of the prosecution.
16. The Inquest witnesses and other witnesses are P.W.2 , P.W.3, P.W.4 to P.W.7. Among them P.W.3 is C.W.6, one by name Ratna, who is Factory employee, she deposed that she knows the complainant and his sister. That she went to the hospital and saw the dead body of the deceased after she committed suicide in her husband's house. That the Thasildaar had come to Manipal hospital and Govindraju and Venkat ramu were also present and they were called as panchaas. Further deposed that Shivamma, Kaleshetty, Prakash, Pavitra, Basavaraju, Sunita, Sharath, Mahendra, Sunitarao, Souwmya were present and their statement's were also taken 15 S.C.No.577/2017 down. She deposed that she has signed the Mahajar and the same is marked as Ex.P.4 and her signature is marked as Ex.P.4(a). This witness was not cross- examined by the counsel for the accused persons. Although this witness has deposed about the inquest, but she has not deposed anything about the contents of the inquest and statement. Hence, only on the sole deposition of this witness alone, conviction cannot be based. Hence, the deposition of the other material witnesses has to be taken into consideration to see whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
17. Further, P.W.2 is C.W.7, one by name Kalashetty, who is father of P.W.1. He deposed that around one and a half year ago accused no.1 was married to the deceased Malini and that both were staying happily. That the accused persons were taking good care of his daughter. That his daughter went to the Hospital for some reason around one 16 S.C.No.577/2017 year ago. That the deceased had no any other decease. That when he went and saw his daughter had died. That the police took his signature on blank paper and they have not inquired him. Further deposed that Thasildaar had come to Manipal Hospital and took the statements of his and his relatives. This witness was also termed hostile and during the cross-examination of this witness, by the Learned Public Prosecutor, he deposed and denied all the suggestions put to him. The statements of this witness was marked as Ex.P.10 and 11.
18. Further, P.W.4 is C.W.8, one by name Shivamma, who is mother of P.W.1. She deposed that the deceased is her sisiter's daughter. That she had taken care of the deceased and got her married. That the accused had not demanded any dowry from them. That the couple were staying happily and she does not know other information in-between the couple. That the accused persons have not given any harassment 17 S.C.No.577/2017 to the deceased. That she died on 10.9.2016 in the house of the accused and she went to the hospital where Thasildaar had come, who did not examine her no did the inquest. This witness was termed hostile and during the cross-examination of this witness, by the Learned Public Prosecutor, she deposed and denied all the suggestions put to her. The statements of this witness was marked as Ex.P.5.
19. Further, P.W.5 is C.W.9, one by name Prakash, who is a businessman and brother of P.W.1. He deposed that the accused persons have not demanded any dowry from them. That after the marriage the couple were staying happily. That the accused persons have not given any harassment to the deceased. That she died on 10.9.2016 in the house of the accused and she went to the hospital where Thasildaar had come, who did not examine him nor did the inquest. This witness was termed hostile and during the cross-examination of this witness, by 18 S.C.No.577/2017 the Learned Public Prosecutor, he deposed and denied all the suggestions put to him. The statements of this witness was marked as Ex.P.6.
20. Again, P.W.6 is C.W.10, one by name Pavitra, who is a house maker and younger sister of P.W.1. She deposed that the accused persons has not demanded any dowry from them. That after the marriage the couple stayed happily. That the accused persons have not given any harassment to the deceased. That she died on 10.9.2016 in the house of the accused and she went to the hospital where Thasildaar had come, who did not examine her nor did the inquest. This witness was termed hostile and during the cross-examination of this witness, by the Learned Public Prosecutor, he deposed and denied all the suggestions put to her. The statements of this witness was marked as Ex.P.7.
21. Further, P.W.7 is C.W.11, one by name Basavaraj, who is a businessman and relative of 19 S.C.No.577/2017 P.W.1. He deposed that the accused persons has not demanded any dowry from them. That after the marriage the couple stayed happily. That the accused persons have not given any harassment to the deceased. That she died on 10.9.2016 in the house of the accused and she went to the hospital where Thasildaar had come, who did not examine her nor did the inquest. This witness was termed hostile and during the cross-examination of this witness, by the Learned Public Prosecutor, he deposed and denied all the suggestions put to him. The statements of this witness was marked as Ex.P.8.
22. Police and Official witnesses are P.W.8 to P.W.10. In this case, P.W.8 is C.W.28, one by name V.Narayana Gouda, who is Retd.P.S.I, he deposed that on 10.09.2016, at around 4.30p.m C.W.1, complainant Nagendra came to the police station and gave the complaint. Further that on the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered under Crime 20 S.C.No.577/2017 No.143/2016 and sent to the Hon'ble court. Complaint is marked as Ex.P.1 and signature of the witness is at Ex.P.1(b). FIR is marked as Ex.P.14 and the signature of witness is at Ex.P.14(a). That he visited the house of the deceased Malini along with the P.W.1, Nagendra and when enquired the neighbours, they stated that deceased had committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan and the family members have taken to Manipal North-side hospital. That when witness visited the said hospital, the body of deceased was kept in Mortuary and witness went back to station and collected information about the deceased. Later received memo from HC 6575, Manjunath and filed the same. He further deposed, later he sent request for inquest to Thasildaar through ACP and next day morning Thasildaar has conducted Inquest and the file was transferred to ACP Prabhakar for further investigation. Further deposed that material objects were seized by A.C.P and on 13.09.2016, 21 S.C.No.577/2017 witness received memo to investigate and with his staff and on information at 3.30p.m arrested accused No.1, Suresh and accused No.4, Mahesh at their residence. Accused No.2, 3 and 5 were not present at that time.
23. During the cross-examination of P.W.8, he deposed and admitted the suggestion put by the counsel for accused persons that complaint was typed by the staff of the police station. Further deposed that he does not know whether the complainant knows to read and write kannada. Further admitted that the relatives of the deceased based on the statement had doubt that the accused persons were responsible for the death of the deceased. Further admitted that he himself has taken the information of death and admitted that he has not inquired the relatives of the deceased and the neighbors when he visited the spot. Further he admitted that normally in dowry death cases, ACP will be the I.O and he has informed about 22 S.C.No.577/2017 the incident immediately to ACP. Further he admitted that ACP has not visited hospital nor the spot along with the witness. That he was not there at the time of Postmortem of the deceased. This witness has denied other suggestion put to him, by the defense counsel.
24. Further, P.W.9 is C.W.29, one by name Prabhakar B Barki, who was working as A.C.P during the time of the incident. He deposed that he was working as ACP from the year 2015 to 2017 at Sheshadripuram Division. At that time Vyalikaval Police station was in his jurisdiction and V.Narayana Gowda was PSI at Vyalikaval police station. That on 10.09.2016, complaint was given by C.W.1at 10.00p.m, stating that the incident occurred on the same day at 4.00p.m and case was registered in Crime No.143/2016. He further deposed that report of the case was sent to Thasildaar by P.S.I and witness visited Vyalikaval Police station, examined FIR and the progress of investigation. That when the witness 23 S.C.No.577/2017 visited accused person's house it was locked and later he visited the hospital and found that the dead body of the deceased was kept in Mortuary and as it was locked, he could not see the body. That on 11.09.2016, along with complainant, Vyalikval PSI, ASI, 2 panchas, Suresh and Vishwanath and staff visited the spot of incident. That door of the house is towards East and PSI had opened the door. That the witness found a ceiling fan inside the house to which one piece of rose color saree was tied and another piece of saree was on the ground. That he drew mahazar and seized the saree. That he signed on the same and also took signatures of 2 panchas, A.S.I, P.S.I and complainant. The said saree pieces were marked as M.O.1 and signature of the witness was marked as Ex.P.2(b). Further deposed that Mahazar was conducted on next day morning from 10.00a.m to 11.30a.m, enquiry was made to witness Sharath, Sunitha and Sowmya and later he visited hospital and 24 S.C.No.577/2017 enquired C.W.7,8,9,10&11 and took their statements. Later he instructed P.S.I to take Thasildaar to perform Inquest mahazar and the same is performed by Thasildaar and took signatures of the panchas on the inquest report and also recorded the statements of the relatives and other witnesses. That later body was sent to postmortem through A.S.I and after the postmortem body was handed over to the family. That the articles were sealed and signed by panchas and witness, the same was marked as M.O.1 to M.O.6. Further deposed that accused persons were not found, on 12.9.2016 postmortem report was brought by H.C1442, on 13.9.2016 the accused persons no.1 to 4, were arrested and laptop was seized from them and seizure mahajar is marked as Ex.P.13 and signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P.13(a). Further deposed that on 15.9.2016 based on the statement's recorded by the Thasildaar, the statements of Sunita, Sowmya's further statements were recorded. On 25 S.C.No.577/2017 27.9.2016 further statement's of Kalashetty, Shivamma, Prakash, Pavitra, Basavaraj were recorded. Further deposed that receipts and statement of marriage, hall-manager were also recorded. That after receiving the postmortem report, he completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet to the Learned Magistrate.
25. During the cross-examination of P.W.9, he deposed and admitted the suggestion that he has gone through the complaint. Further admitted that in the end of the complaint the complainant has written that he had doubt on the accused persons and gave complaint. Further admitted that C.W.1, 4 to 13 are relatives. Further admitted that as mentioned in the complaint, he has not investigated nor seized the mobile, in which it was messaged as the accused persons were giving harassment to the deceased. Further admitted that he has not issued any notice during the panchnama to C.W.2,3,18,20,21. Further 26 S.C.No.577/2017 admitted that he has not written the mahajar and not mentioned who wrote it on the mahajar. Further admitted that he has not mentioned on the seized articles M.O.1 to 6 the date of seizure and that he has not written the seizure mahajar. Further admitted that during the inquest no statements were recorded. Further admitted that on the basis of doubt the statement of the witnesses were recorded. Further admitted that no investigation is made for the seizure of Lap-top in the case nor the date of seizure is mentioned. This witness has denied other suggestion put to him, by the defense counsel.
26. Further, P.W.10 is C.W.24, one by name Shivappa Lamani, who is the Thasildaar and he has deposed that on 10.9.2016 while he was on his duty he received the requisition to conduct inquest of deceased Malini from the Vaiyalikaval Police station. That he went to the Manipal north malleshwaram Hospital on 11.9.2016 near the mortury and from 2 27 S.C.No.577/2017 p.m to 4 p.m conducted the inquest. Panchas Govindaraju, Venkataraju, Ratna were present at the time of the inquest and signed. That the mahajar is marked as Ex.P.4 and the signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P.4 (b) and (c). Further deposed that the relatives of the deceased by name Shivamma, Prakash, Pavitra, Basavaraj, Punit, Sharat, Mahendra were also present and there statements were also recorded. Further that the statement of one Sunita was taken down in Column.10 and statement of one Shankar was also taken down. Further deposed that body was handed over to the Doctors. He deposed that due to the harassment given by the husband and parents-in-law of the deceased, she had committed suicide. That the cloths on the body of the deceased are marked as M.O.1 to M.O.5. Further deposed that except the ligature mark there were no any other marks on the body of the deceased.
28 S.C.No.577/2017
27. During the cross-examination of P.W.10, he deposed and admitted the suggestion put to him by the counsel for the accused persons that the body was already near the mortuary by the time he went there. Further admitted that he did not issue any notice to the relatives of the deceased. Further admitted that in the statements of the relatives of the deceased, they have mentioned that the are doubtful the due to the harassment of the accused persons the deceased might have died. Further admitted that the statements were given on the basis of doubt. Further admitted that he himself has not written all the statements of the relatives. Further admitted the suggestion that the relatives no where have told clearly that due to the harassment of the accused persons, the deceased committed suicide. Further admitted that all the statements are of the relatives. This witness denied other suggestions put to him. 29 S.C.No.577/2017
28. In this case, learned counsel for the accused persons has relied on the decisions reported in:
(1) 2008 16 SCC 512 (Narayana Murthy V/s State of Karnataka & Anr.) (2) 1997 11 SCC 26 (State of Maharashtra V/s Ashok Chotelal Shukla) (3) 2006 Cri.L.J.4250 (Anandamoy Ghosh & Ors. V/s State of W.B) (4) 2013 10 SCC 395 (Gurdip Singh V/s State of Punjab) (5) AIR 2010 SC 512 (Amalendu Palalias Jhantu V/s State of Kerala) (6) AIR 2004 SC 1713 (Kunhiabdulla & Anr. V/s State of Kerala) (7) AIR 2001 SC 2828 (Satvir Singh & Ors. V/s State of Punjab & Ors.) (8) AIR 2001 SC 2828 (Satvir Singh & Anr. V/s State of Punjab & Ors.) (9) 2006 Cri.L.J 554 (Harjit Singh V/s State of Punjab) in support of his argument.
29. On considering the entire papers on record and the evidence adduced by all the witness, it is relevent to note that P.W1, who is the complainant, in the complaint which is at Ex.P.1, has mentioned;
" ನನತರ ಈಗಗ ಸಸಮರಸ 06 ತನಗಳ ಹನದ ಸಸರರಶ ಮತಸತ ಆತನ ತನದ ತಯ ಅಣಣ ಅತತಗರವರಸಗಳಸ ಇನನ ನ ಮನರಸ ವರರ ಮಕಕಳಸ ಬರಡ ನರವಬಬರನ ಒಟಟಗ ಸರರಸವದಸ ಬರಡ ಎನದಸ ಹರಳದದರಸ. ಆ ವಚರದಲ ನನನ ತನಗಗನ ಮತಸತ ಅವರ ಮನಯರಗನ ಜಗಳವಗತಸತ.
ಈಗಗ ಸಸಮರಸ 04 ತನಗಳ ಹನದ ತವ ಹನಸದಗ ಮನ
ಖರರದಸಬರಕಗದ ಅದಕಕಗ ನರನಸ ನಮ ಮ ತನದಯವರನದ 5 ಲಕ
ರನ ಹಣ ತಗದಸಕನನಡಸ ಬ ಎನದಸ ಒತತಯ ಮಡದಸ ದ , ಆಗ
ನವಗಳಸ ನಮ ಮ ತನಗ ಚನನಗರಲ ಎನಬ ಭವನಯನದ 5 ಲಕ ರನ ನ ಹಸಡಸಗನ ಮನಯಲಯರ ಎಲಲರ ಮಸನದಯರ ಕನಟಟದವ.
ಗಳನಸ
ಆದರನ ಸಹ ಆಕಯ ಗನಡನ ಮನಯವರಸ ನನನ ತನಗಯನಸ ನ
ಸರಯಗ ನನರಡಕನಳಸ ಳ ತತರಲಲಲ."
30 S.C.No.577/2017
Further that during the evidence, P.W.1 has deposed :
" ಮದಸವಯದ ಮರಲ ಗನಡ ಹನಡತ ಚನನಗದದರಸ."
and stood hostile to the case of the prosecution. This witness who is the complainant and brother of the deceased, has taken different stands in the case. Witness deposing that he does not know what is written in Mahazar and complaint and that he doubted that accused persons would have killed the deceased and gave the complaint and further P.W.1 turning hostile, raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further there are no documents about the monetary transaction between the accused and the deceased to support the case of the prosecution. The men's rea for driving the deceased to commit suicide has to be established by the evidence of the material witness and corroborated. Hence, the evidence of this witness has to be corroborated with the evidence of the other material witness to prove the charges framed against the accused persons and the abetment of the accused 31 S.C.No.577/2017 persons has to be proved to establish the case of the prosecution. It can be noted that, in the complaint Ex.P.1, the complainant has mentioned that there were frequent quarrels in between the deceased and accused no.1, and many panchayats were held to console the matter, further that the accused persons had demanded dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and they had paid, but during the evidence he has not deposed anything in that regard. On the contrary P.W.1, deposed that he does not know what is written in Mahazar and complaint. That he doubted that accused persons would have killed the deceased and gave the complaint. This witness turned hostile and so this aspect raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further, P.W.1 has signed the panchanama, and not at all supported the spot mahajar to support the case of the prosecution. It is evident to note that the spot panchanama Dt. 11-09- 2016 at Ex.P.2 is not proved. The inquest report dt. 32 S.C.No.577/2017 11.09.2016 which is at Ex.P.4, in Column no.4 it is mentioned that one Aishwarya has last seen the deceased on 10.09.2016 at 2.30 p.m, but she is not made witness to substantiate her say. P.W.2 deposing that that both were staying happily. That the accused persons were taking good care of his daughter. That his daughter went to the Hospital for some reason around one year ago. That the deceased had no any other decease. That the police took his signature on blank paper and they have not inquired him, again raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. In this case P.W.4 has deposed, that the accused had not demanded any dowry from them. That the accused persons have not given any harassment to the deceased. where Thasildaar had come, who did not examine her no did the inquest, and turned hostile. Further, P.W.5 has deposed that the accused persons have not demanded any dowry from them. Thasildaar had come, who did not examine him nor did the inquest and turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 33 S.C.No.577/2017
30. In this case, the say of the witnesses has to be corroborated to the evidence adduced by other witness. Based only on the say of the sole Inquest witness, it cannot be taken that the accused persons have committed the offences as charge sheeted, when the complainant himself has turned completely hostile along with his near relatives who are P.W.2, 4 , 5, 6 and 7. On going through Ex.P.9 which is the postmortem report, wherein, it is clear that except the ligature mark there are no other wounds or injuries on the body. The opinion of the doctor as to the cause of death is "death was due to Asphyxia as a result of hanging" is mentioned in the postmortem report. The fact that cash and gold ornaments was given to the accused persons by the family of the deceased, is not supported by any documentary evidence, which would support and shows that there was any type of monetary transaction between the family of deceased and the accused persons as dowry during the 34 S.C.No.577/2017 marriage or later. Here in this case, the prosecution was not successful to establish the charges framed against the accused persons. Even the relative witnesses have turned hostile and not adduced in the favor of the prosecution case. The ingredients of section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
31. Further, on considering the evidence of all the witness on record, it is relevant to note that P.W.8 to 10 are official witness and police witness. They have supported the case of the prosecution and thoroughly been cross-examined by the defense counsel. The evidence of public servants cannot be disbelieved that they are interested in the success of prosecution case. But the various discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant makes it doubtful to believe the version of the prosecution in toto. As deposed the I.O., I except the evidence of the police witness. Based only on the evidence of the official 35 S.C.No.577/2017 witnesses, P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10, the guilt of the accused persons cannot be concluded. Thus it is clear that P.W.1, who is brother of the deceased, only suspected about the accused persons that the deceased would have committed suicide due to ill- treatment by the accused. Therefore, on considering the entire evidence and papers on record, there is absolutely no material against the accused persons to prove that the accused persons subjected the deceased to any kind of ill-treatment and harassment and thereby due to any such ill-treatment and the harassment, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, the question of accused persons abetting the deceased to commit suicide does not arise, without the support of any evidence of independent witnesses, the evidence of P.W.3 does not merit consideration as she has not deposed anything to the effect that her statement in the inquest, which could be substantiated, hence, there is absolutely no material forthcoming in the 36 S.C.No.577/2017 evidence of P.W.3 to prove the inquest which is at Ex.P.4. More over the spot panchanama is at Ex.P.2 and P.W.1 have completely turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The relatives of the deceased have given their evidence against the prosecution and in turn supported the accused persons to get the benefit of doubt. Thus, the witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.7 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and not supported, raises doubt on the entire case of the prosecution.
32. Hence ,from the discussion made herein above, it is clear that the evidence of P.W.1, the brother of the deceased has himself turned hostile and further other material witnesses, have not supported the prosecution case as alleged against the accused persons. There are no independent witnesses to the case of prosecution. The inquest panchanama at Ex.P.4 and the spot mahazar at Ex.P.2 are not proved 37 S.C.No.577/2017 by the prosecution. Only on the basis of evidence of I.O/P.W.9, no case can be made out against the accused persons for the offence charged. Therefore, doubt arises regarding the case as alleged against the accused persons. It is well settled principle of law that the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of such doubt. Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons subjected the deceased to any physical and mental harassment and demanded dowry and treated her with cruelty and that the accused persons abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove point No.1 and 2, therefore, the point No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
33. Point No.3: From the discussion made herein above, it is clear that all the accused persons deserves to be acquitted of the offence charged against 38 S.C.No.577/2017 them in this case. In the result, therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
ORD ER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused persons no. 1 to 5, are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail bond executed by the accused persons no.1 to 5 and their surety bonds shall stand canceled.
The properties/cloths at M.O.1 to M.O.6, are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period, as they are worthless.
The property at M.O.7/lap-top shall be confiscated to the Government.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 10th day of March, 2021) (Smt. SANDHYA S.) LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 72).
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: Nagendra
P.W.2: Kalashetty
P.W.3: Rathna
P.W.4: Shivamma
P.W.5: Prakash
39 S.C.No.577/2017
P.W.6: Pavithra
P.W.7: Basvaraju
P.W.8: V.Narayana Gowda
P.W.9: Prabhakar
PW.10: Shivappa Lamani
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of
Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a & b) : Signature of witness
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a & b) : Signature of witness
Ex.P.3 : Statement of P.W.1
Ex.P4 : Inquest Report
Ex.P.4(a & b) : Signature of witness
Ex.P.5 to P.10 : Statements
Ex.P.11 : Re-statement of P.W.2
Ex.P.12 & 13 : Amanath Panchanama
Ex.P.13(a ) : Signature of witness
Ex.P.14 : FIR
Ex.P.14(a ) : Signature of witness
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
-NIL-
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:
-NIL-
List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:
M.O.1 - Rose color Saree pieces M.O.2 - White color half sleeve shirt M.O.3 - White color Bra M.O.4 - Pink color Bra 40 S.C.No.577/2017 M.O.5 - Jeans Pant M.O.6 - Under Garment M.O.7 - Laptop.
(Smt. SANDHYA S.) LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 72)