Bangalore District Court
(By The Learned Public Prosecutor) vs And Having Intimacy With The Mother Of ... on 3 January, 2023
KABC010018592016
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT:
Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
SC No.92/2016
BETWEEN
State by Rajagopalanagar PS.,
Bengaluru .. COMPLAINANT
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
AND
Shivakumar
S/o Siddaiah, a/a 21 Yrs.,
R/a No.34, Jayammas' House,
4th E Cross, 9th Main Road, Rajeshwarinagar,
Laggere, Bengaluru.
And also at Baranapura Grama,
Kamalapura Post, Andanakere Hobli
Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District. .. ACCUSED
(By Sri MG, Advocate)
*****
Date of offence & time 03.09.2015
Date of report of offence 03.9.2015 at 21.45 hours
Date of arrest of the accused 04.09.2015
Date of release on bail Accused is in J.C.,
Total period of custody -
Name of the complainant Sri Shivanna N
Date of commencement of 11.09.2019
recording of evidence
2
SC No.92/2016
Date of closing of evidence 01.12.2022
Offences complained of U/s.302 of I.P.C.
Opinion of the Judge Accused found not guilty
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Rajagopalanagar P.S., Bangalore, has submitted charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/s.302 of IPC in their Crime No.635/2015
2. The factual matrix of the case is that:
The accused along with his mother deceased-Smt. Susheelamma, a/a 40 yrs., residing in the house of informant-N. Shivanna as tenant, at house bearing No.34, situated at 4th E Cross, 8th Main Road, Rajeshwarinagar, Laggere, within the limits of Rajagopalanagar P.S., Bangalore, and the accused was working in Private Factory, and the deceased was working in Paragon Shoe company. Since six months CW.4 K. Dhanajaya Kumar @ Dhananjaya by visiting the house of accused and having intimacy with the mother of accused i.e., deceased-Smt.Susheelamma and the accused by suspecting CW.4, advised his mother not to entertain CW.4 Dhananjaya, but the deceased and CW.4 by quarreling with the accused, ousted him from the house. On 2.9.2015 while deceased was talking with CW.4, the accused picked up quarrel with deceased-Smt.Susheelamma and when she resisted the accused, the accused by suspecting the illicit relationship of CW.4 and deceased-Smt. Susheelamma, decided to kill both of them. On 3.9.2015 at 8.00 a.m. the deceased-Smt. Susheelamma picked up quarrel with accused with regard to the incident that took place on 2.9.2015, assaulted the accused with hands, the accused aggrieved with the same, and with 3 SC No.92/2016 intention to kill her, assaulted with hands, and by strangulating her neck, made her to fall on the ground and put the grinding stone over the head of deceased-Smt. Susheelamma and killed her and went away by locking the door, and thereby the accused committed murder of the deceased and hence the accused has been charge sheeted for the alleged offence.
3. The concerned police have submitted charge sheet before the jurisdictional VII Addl., CMM., Bangalore. The learned Magistrate after taking the cognizance for the offence U/s.302 of IPC against accused committed the case to the Sessions Court by complying Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., furnishing charge sheet copies to the accused. After the receipt of the committal records, the same was numbered as SC No.92/2016. Initially this case is pending before LXVI Addl., City Civil and Sessions Judge Bangalore(CCH No.67), and the same has been transferred to this Court Vide Order No.Crl.B. No.14/2021 dated 4.3.2021 and the same has been received by this Court on 10.03.2021 for disposal.
4. The accused has been in judicial custody. As per the direction of this Court, he has been produced before this Court. After hearing the learned Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for accused, as there are sufficient materials against the accused for the alleged offence, on 13.06.2019 has framed charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty of the said offence and he has claimed to be tried of the offences charged.
5. In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.12. The 4 SC No.92/2016 prosecution has produced 16 documents at Exs.P.1 to P.16 and got identified Material Objects MOs1 to MO10. After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C., was recorded on 22.11.2022. The accused denied incriminating evidence forthcoming against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and not chosen to lead defense evidence on his behalf nor produced any material in support of his case.
6. Heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the materials on record.
7.The points that arise for consideration of this Court are:
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being son of the deceased and by suspecting her fidelity and on 3.9.2015 at about 8.00 a. while accused having break fast at house bearing No.34, situated at 4th E Cross, 8th Main Road, Rajeshwarinagar, Laggere, within the limits of Rajagopalanagar P.S., Bangalore, the deceased picked up quarrel with the accused with regard to his objection for having illicit relationship of her with CW4, assaulted him with hands, the accused aggrieved with the same. and with intention to kill her, assaulted her and by strangulating her neck, made her to fall on the ground and put the grinding stone over the head of deceased-Smt. Susheelamma and killed her and went away by locking the door and thereby the accused murdered the deceased-Smt. Susheelamma, and has committed the offence punishable U/s.302 of IPC?5
SC No.92/2016
2.What order?
8.This Court has answered the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
9.Points No.1 On perusal of the complaint marked at Ex.P.1 and also charge sheet and the evidence of witnesses produced by the prosecution clearly goes to show that the accused along with his mother deceased-Smt. Susheelamma, a/a 40 yrs., residing in the house of informant-N. Shivanna as tenant, at house bearing No.34, situated at 4th E Cross, 8th Main Road, Rajeshwarinagar, Laggere, within the limits of Rajagopalanagar P.S., Bangalore, and the accused was working in Private Factory, and the deceased was working in Paragon Shoe company. Since six months CW.4 K. Dhanajaya Kumar @ Dhananjaya by visiting the house of accused and having intimacy with the mother of accused i.e., deceased- Smt.Susheelamma and the accused by suspecting CW.4, advised his mother not to entertain CW.4 Dhananjaya, but the deceased and CW.4 by quarreling with the accused, ousted him from the house. On 2.9.2015 while deceased was talking with CW.4, the accused picked up quarrel with deceased- Smt.Susheelamma and when she resisted the accused, the accused by suspecting the illicit relationship of CW.4 and deceased-Smt. Susheelamma, decided to kill both of them. On 3.9.2015 at 8.00 a.m. the deceased-Smt. Susheelamma picked 6 SC No.92/2016 up quarrel with accused with regard to the incident that took place on 2.9.2015, assaulted the accused with hands, the accused aggrieved with the same, and with intention to kill her, assaulted with hands, and by strangulating her neck, made her to fall on the ground and put the grinding stone over the head of deceased-Smt. Susheelamma and killed her and went away by locking the door, and thereby the accused committed murder of the deceased and hence the accused has been charge sheeted for the alleged offence.
10.In order to prove the said allegation regarding murder of deceased-Smt. Susheelamma the prosecution has examined PW.1 Chandrashekar being the spot mahazar witness turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution regarding drawing of Ex.P1 Mahzar and collection of bloodstained materials from the place of occurrence. He denies the statement given before the police marked as Ex.P2. PW.2 Smt. Jayamma being the wife of informant and landlord of the residential premises where the deceased-Smt. Susheelamma and the accused were residing turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. And she denies the statement given before I.O., marked as Ex.P3. According to PW.2 the deceased was tenant under her husband. She does not know anything about the family dispute between deceased-Smt. Susheelamma and the husband of the deceased. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW.1 and PW.2 during the cross-examination by the learned public prosecutor.
11.PW.3 Rudramuni, Assistant Executive Engineer, Chokkasandra Sub-Division, on request of Rajagopalanaghar 7 SC No.92/2016 Police prepared Ex.P5 rough sketch of the place of occurrence and handed over the same to the I.O., Ex.P4 is the request letter issued by the I.O., to prepare the sketch of place of occurrence.
12.PW.4 Devaraja being the relative of the deceased- Smt. Susheelamma deposed in his evidence that deceased- Smt. Susheelamma sustained head injuries and her body was sent to Victoria Hospital. He identified the dead body in Victoria Hospital and put his signature on Ex.P.6 inquest mahazar drawn by the I.O., During cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, he further deposed that his younger brother one Vijayakumar, called him to the Hospital, his evidence in no way helps the prosecution to prove the charge leveled against the accused except identification of deceased..
13.PW.6 Shivananda Shetty, Police Constable, Rajagopalanagar P.S., deputed to bring the cloth on the dead body of deceased-Smt. Susheelamma. Accordingly, he has collected the same from the Victoria Hospital and handed over the same to the I.O., and submitted his reported marked as Ex.P7.
14.PW.7 Dr. M. C. Pradeep Kumar, Asst., Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Victoria Hospital, Bangalore deposed that on 4.9.2015 he received dead body of Smt. Susheelamma through Rajagopalanagar Police and conducted postmortem, issued PM report marked as Ex.P8. It is clear from Ex.P8 PM report, that the death is due to head injury sustained and the injuries found on the dead body of deceased-Smt. Susheelamma are antemortum in nature. It is 8 SC No.92/2016 clear from the evidence of PW.7 that deceased-Smt. Susheelamma died due to injuries sustained by her, but the nexus between the injuries and the accused should be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. PW.7 examined MO5 and gave his opinion that the injury mentioned in Ex.P8 could be caused by MO5 stone.
15.PW.8 M. R. Vijayakumar being the relative of the deceased-Smt. Susheelamma turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. He does not know how Smt. Susheelamma died, however, after her death he visited Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, to see her dead body. His evidence in no way helps the prosecution to prove the charge leveled against the accused.
16.PW.9 Ramesh, Police Constable of Rajagopalanagar P.S., deposed that on 4.9.2015 at 3.00 p.m. gave FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate, which is marked as Ex.P12. PW.10 Manju being the spot mahazar witness turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution regarding drawing of spot mahazar Ex.P1, and seizure of Material Objects. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW.10 to establish the case of the prosecution.
17.PW.11 Anandaiah, relative of informant deposed that deceased-Smt. Susheelamma had two children, her daugther is no more, the accused is none other than the son of deceased. ON 4.9.2015, PW.8 Vijayakumar telephoned and informed him regarding the death of Smt. Susheelamma, but he is not aware as to how Smt. Susheelamma died. He has not given any statement before the police marked as Ex.P10.
9SC No.92/2016
18.PW.12 H. K. Mahananda, Police Inspector, Rajagopalanagar P.S., deposed that on 3.9.2015 at 9.00 p.m. he received information and rushed to the place of occurrence, received the complaint filed by the informant marked as Ex.P11 and forwarded the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. He has drawn Ex.P1 mahazar and seized Material objects including MO5. Collected photographs of the place of occurrence, marked as Ex.P13, arrested the accused and recorded voluntary statement of the accused marked as Ex.P14. It is significant to note that PW.12 deposed in his evidence that based on voluntary statement of the accused he has visited the place of occurrence and seized shirt, key under Ex.P15 Mahazar. Shirt is marked as MO9, key is marked as MO10. The accused is none other than the son of the deceased-Smt. Susheelamma. MO9 Shirt and MO10 Key recovered under Ex.P15 Mahazar is not sufficient to connect the accused with the Crime, since the accused being the son was also residing with deceased soon before her death. There is no independent or circumstantial evidence to establish the case of the prosecution that the accused has committed murder of the deceased-Smt. Susheelamma. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased-Smt. Susheelamma and CW.4 K. Dhananjaya Kumar closed to each other, the accused suspected that the deceased is having illicit relationship with CW.4. The accused warned deceased as well as CW.4. However, deceased and CW.4 continued their relationship and the accused became angry with intention to kill his mother assaulted on her by MO No.5. CW.4 is reported to be dead, 10 SC No.92/2016 and his evidence is not available on record. The very informant is reported to be dead, contents of complainant as well as seizure of material objects from the place of occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution. PW.12 further deposed in his evidence that he has recorded the statements of witnesses and collected PM Report, Inquest Mahazar, sketch prepared by Asst., Executive Engineer and filed charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offence. The learned counsel for the accused denied the official act performed by PW.12. The accused being the son of the deceased-Smt. Susheelamma by suspecting the illicit relationship of deceased and CW.4 intentionally committed murder of his mother has not been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
19. Point No.2: In view of answer of this court on points No.1 and 2, this court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/s.302 of IPC.
The accused shall be set at liberty forth with if he is not required in any other cases.
MO1 to MO10 being worthless, shall be destroyed after appeal period is over. (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 3rd day of January, 2023) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.11
SC No.92/2016 ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: Chandrashekar P.W.2: Smt. Jayamma P.W.3: Rudramuni P.W.4: Devaraj P.W.5: Suresh Kumar P.W.6: Shivananda Shetty P.W.7: Dr. Pradeep Kumar P.W.8: M. R. Vijaykumar P.W.9: Ramesh P.W.10: B. A. manju P.W.11: Aandanaiah P.W.12: H.K. Mahananda.
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Spot Mahazar Ex.P.2: Statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3: Statement of PW.2 Ex.P.4: Requisition Letter Ex.P.5: Sketch Ex.P.6; Inquest Mahazar Ex.P.7: Report Ex.P.8: PM Report Ex.P.9: Statement of PW.10 Ex.P.10: Statement of PW.11 Ex.P.11: Complaint Ex.P.12: FIR Ex.P.13: Photographs, Ex.P.14: Voluntary statement of accused Ex.P.15: Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.16: Statement of PC 4583.
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:12
SC No.92/2016 MO1 Bloodstained Saree MO2: Bloodstained blouse MO3: Black Colour Petty Coat MO4: Pink Colour undergarment MO5: Grinding Stone MO6: Blood sample MO7: Axle Blade MO8: Steel lock MO9: Shirt MO10:Key.
(Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.13
SC No.92/2016 Accused produced from JC through VC, Learned counsel for accused present. Learned Public Prosecutor present. Order pronounced in the open Court vide its separate order ORDER Acting U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/s.302 of IPC.
The accused shall be set at liberty forth with if he is not required in any other cases.
MO1 to MO10 being worthless, shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
Office to intimate the concerned Jail Authorities.
(Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
14 SC No.92/2016 15 SC No.92/2016