Bangalore District Court
State By vs A1. Smt.Siddamma on 12 June, 2020
BEFORE THE LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
(CCH-67)
DATED: This the 12 th day of June, 2020
PRESENT
Smt. K.KATHYAYANI., B.Com, L.L.M.
LXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
S.C.No.170 of 2014
COMPLAINANT : State by:
JP Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
/Vs/
ACCUSED: A1. Smt.Siddamma,
W/o. Late Dasi Gowda,
Aged about 45 years.
A2. T.H.Janardhana,
S/o. Hanumanthaiah,,
Aged about 40 years.
A3. T.S.Veerabhdregoda @ Putta,
S/o. Shivanna Gowda,
Aged about 27 years.
A4. Smt.Vijayalakshmi @ Viji,
Aged about 26 years.
All are residing at:
No. 229/A, 10th Cross,
Kottanooru Main Road,
Near Krishna Nagar Bus Stop,
Shreenidhi Layout,
2 S.C.No.170/2014
Bengaluru - 62.
(By Sri.DRS, Advocate.)
DATE OF:
Occurrence of offence : 22.08.2011
Commencement of trial : 07.10.2015
Closing of trial : 08.01.2020
Name of the complainant : Sri.H.C.Narasimhaiah.
Offence alleged : Section 306 read with
Section 34 of IPC
Opinion of the judge : Charges leveled
against accused are
not proved.
Sentence or order : Acquittal.
JUDGMENT
JP Nagar police have filed the present charge sheet against A-1 to 4 in Crime No.641/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are;
a) During the life time of wife of complainant by name, Smt.Manjula, A-1 to 4 humiliated her by gossiping about her character with their relatives that she had illicit relationship with A-2. In view of the said defamatory statements made by A-1 to 4, Manjula was sad and depressed.
3 S.C.No.170/2014
b) On account of the said depression, on 22.08.2011, in between 10:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m., Smt.Manjula, committed suicide by hanging herself to the bed room ceiling fan with a saree at her residence situated at No.385, 4th Cross, I Stage, Muneshwara Temple Road, JP Nagar within the jurisdiction of JP Nagar Police Station. Accordingly, the complaint was filed.
3. A-1 to 4 were granted anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and thereafter were enlarged on regular bail.
4. Since the case for the alleged offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the entire records along with the properties were committed to the Court of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on 04.02.2014 directing A-1 to 4 to appear before the Sessions Court when directed.
5. The case was allotted to this Court for trial and after allocation, again A-1 to 4 were enlarged on committal bail.
6. Heard before charge. Charges framed and plea of A-1 to 4 was recorded for the offence punishable under 4 S.C.No.170/2014 Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.
7. During the course of trial, the prosecution in all got examined 12 witnesses i.e. CWs-1, 2, 5, 3, 9, 6, 14, 15, 4, 7, 8 and 16 respectively as PWs-1 to 12. Got exhibited 10 documents at Ex.P-1 to P-10. Got marked 1 material object at MO-1. Ex.D-1 and D-2 are exhibited for A-1 to 4 in the cross examination of CWs-1 and 2 respectively.
8. Since there was incriminating evidence against A-1 to 4, their statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, wherein they denied the evidence let in by the prosecution and have not led any defence evidence.
9. Heard arguments of both the sides on merits of the case.
a) In addition to his oral arguments, the counsel for A-1 to 4 has also filed his memorandum of arguments and relied on the decisions reported in 1995 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases page 438 (Swamy Prahaladdas versus State of MP and Another in SLP (Crl.) No.4079/1994 in Criminal Appeal No. of 1995 decided on 5 S.C.No.170/2014 April 18, 1995) wherein he has drawn my attention to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the effect that;
"Penal Code, 1860 - S. 306 -
Abetment of suicide - Sexual jealousy between the appellant and the deceased - During quarrel, the appellant allegedly remarking to the deceased to go and die - Thereafter the deceased going home and committing suicide - Held, suicide not direct result of the words uttered by the appellant - Sessions Court erred in summoning the appellant to face the trial - Proceedings against the appellant quashed.
b) The other decision he has relied on is the decision reported in 1980 Supp Supreme Court Cases page 407 (Uma Shankar Versus State of UP in Criminal Appela No.1689 of 1974 decided on March 22, 1979) wherein he has relied on the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the effect that;
"Criminal Trial - Witness -
Inimical - Witness admitting enmity in his testimony - Possibility of false implication being present appellant entitled to benefit of doubt.
Criminal Trial - Appreciation of evidence - Enmity with the appellant having been shown, the vital change in the act attributed to the appellant at the trial as compared to that in the FR 6 S.C.No.170/2014 significant enough to show possibility of false implication - Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt.
c) I have carefully gone through the above noted decisions and perused the record.
10. Out of above said facts and circumstances of the case, the points that arose for my consideration are;
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, during life time of the deceased Manjula, A-1 to 4 used to gossip about her character and made defamatory statements with her relatives that she was having illicit relationship with A-2.
Being humiliated and depressed by the said act of A-1 to 4, Manjula on 22.08.2011 in between 10:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m., committed suicide by hanging herself to the bed room ceiling fan with the saree at her residence situated at No.385, 4th Cross, I Stage, Muneshwara Temple Road, JP Nagar within the jurisdiction of JP Nagar Police Station and thereby the accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC?
2. What Order?
11. My answer to the above points are in the;
1. Point No.1 : Negative.
2. Point No.2 : As per the final order for 7 S.C.No.170/2014 the following reasons.
REASONS
12. POINT No.1:- As noted above, it is the case of the prosecution that during the life time of Manjula/the deceased, A-1 to 4 used to gossip about her character with her relatives by making defamatory statements regarding her character that she is having illicit relationship with A-2.
a) Due to the said act of A-1 to 4, the deceased was humiliated and was gone to depression and committed suicide by hanging and thereby A-1 to 4 had instigated her to commit suicide and thus, committed the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
13. As per the prosecution papers the details of the incidents, the defamatory statements and gossips made by the accused persons which were led the deceased to commit suicide are;
8 S.C.No.170/2014
a) A-1 and the deceased were cousins and were brought up together.
b) Their houses were situated beside in Tokasandra Village.
c) The deceased was the only daughter to her parents and thus, she was taken with utmost care, love and affection. Because of which, A-1 was jealous about the deceased.
d) After the death of the father of the deceased, her mother went back to her parental village i.e. Huyalappanahalli Village and thus, their house at Tokasandra kept vacant. Towards which, for small matters, there were quarrels between the family members of A-1 and the deceased.
e) The deceased used to visit the village to look after the house and whenever she went to the village, she used to go well dressed with fabulous clothe and jewelry. Because of which, A-1 was anger and was not talking with the deceased and developed hatred. 9 S.C.No.170/2014
f) There was a quarrel between the family members of A-1 and the deceased in respect of the vacant dilapidated house at Tokasandra 2 months before the date of incident.
g) With this hatred, A-1 to 4 made gossip about the character of the deceased with her relatives by making defamatory statements regarding her character that she is having illicit relationship with A-2 and due to the said act of A-1 to 4, the deceased was humiliated. Her mother, husband, son and relatives consoled her. But, the deceased who went into depression, committed suicide by hanging with a saree to the ceiling fan of the bedroom.
h) In the course of gossip, on 03.08.2011 at 8:00 a.m. A-1 to A-4 called CW-6 over phone and made defamatory statements against the character of the deceased.
10 S.C.No.170/2014
i) On 06.08.2011 around 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., A-1 called CW-9 and made defamatory statements against the character of the deceased.
j) On the same day i.e. on 06.08.2011 at 10:00 p.m., A-1 to 4 came near the house of CW-1 and the deceased, made galata, abused the deceased with filthy language and told her that she is a prostitute, having illicit relationship with A-2, purchased clothe and jewelry out of the money of A-2, they will not leave her, would conduct panchayath, etc.
k) On 21.08.2011 at 2:00 p.m., A-1 to 3 went to the house of CW-7 and told that the deceased has illicit relationship with A-2 and it is better for her to die than to lead such a life. CW-7 told the same to her son CW-8 who intimated the same to CW-1 over phone.
l) On 22.08.2011 in the morning, before leaving the house for work, CW-1 told about the information given by CW-8 to the deceased, consoled her and told 11 S.C.No.170/2014 that they would lodge complaint in that regard to JP Nagar police station after his return from the job in the evening.
m) But, in the meanwhile, CW-1 when was in the office, received information from his son CW-2 over phone at 12:45 p.m. that the deceased committed suicide.
14. It is the defence raised in the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses on behalf of the accused persons that there was no cordial relationship between CW-1 and the deceased; there was dispute between them with regard to the house of Tokasandra; CW-1 harassing the deceased, because of which, she committed suicide.
a) CW-1 has raised loan from A-2 who had money by selling his properties. CW-1 returned meager amount and in due of the remaining amount. A-2 had been demanding for repayment. CW-1 who has hatred against the accused persons, to save his skin, falsely 12 S.C.No.170/2014 implicated the accused persons in the present suicide case.
15. So, the fact of the deceased committing suicide is not in dispute. However, in the cross examination of the doctor who conducted the PM examination i.e. CW-14 and in the cross examination of the investigating officer who done the entire investigation of the case on hand, i.e. CW-16, the defence taken is that it is not the case of hanging. Hence, it is clear that the mode/manner of suicide is disputed.
16. To prove the disputed facts i.e., the reasons for committing suicide and the manner/mode of suicide, as noted above, the prosecution totally got examined totally 12 witnesses. Got exhibited 10 documents and got marked 1 material object.
17. On the other hand, to prove their defence, A-1 to A-4 did not lead any evidence. However, as observed above, in the course of cross examination of CWs-1 13 S.C.No.170/2014 and 2, the portions of the further statement and the statement of CWs-1 and 2 are got exhibited for the defence as Ex.D-1 and 2 respectively. With regard to the probable evidence if any elicited from the prosecution witnesses in support of their defence, will be considered in the course of discussion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
18. It is stated in the charge sheet that CW-1 is the witness to say about the complaint averments and the incident; CWs-2 and 3 are the witnesses to say about the incident.
19. CWs-4 and 10 are the witnesses to say about their coming to know about the gossip by A-1 to 4 from CW-1. CW-4 is also a witness to the inquest mahazar.
20. CWs-5 to 7 are the witnesses to say about the gossip by A-1 to 4 and CW-9 is the witness to say about the defamatory statements made by A-1 about the character of the deceased. CW-8 is the witness who 14 S.C.No.170/2014 came to know about the gossip from his mother CW-7 and intimated the same to CW-1 over phone.
21. CW-11 is the native of CW-1 and the witness to say about his coming to know about the gossip and the incident. CWs-12 and 13 are the witnesses to inquest mahazar.
22. CW-14 is the doctor who did PM examination. CW-15 is the then head constable who produced the dead body for PM examination and after the examination, handed over the dead body to the relative on receipt of acknowledgement and CW-16 is the investigation officer who did the entire investigation of the case, wherein the prosecution gave up the evidence of CWs-10 to 13.
23. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that A-1 is the cousin of the deceased. A-2 is the son in law; A-4 is the daughter and A-3 is the nephew of A-
1. 15 S.C.No.170/2014
24. It is also not in dispute that CW-1 is the husband, CW-2 is the son, CW-3 is the mother and CW-5 is the junior uncle of the deceased. CW-6 is the niece and CW-9 is the sister in law of CW-1. It is in the evidence of CW-1 that CW-7 is his niece and sister in law which is not disputed by the other side. Admittedly, CW-8 is the son of CW-7. CWs-4 and 10 are the colleagues of CW-1.
25. As noted above, the witnesses examined are CWs-1 to 9 and 14 to 16, wherein the material witnesses to speak about the alleged gossip and the defamatory statements led the deceased to commit suicide are CWs-1, 2, 5 to 7 and 9; the corroborative witnesses came to know about the alleged gossip which led the deceased to depression resulting in her committing suicide are CWs-3 and 8 who are all admittedly the close relatives and CW-4 is the hearsay witness.
16 S.C.No.170/2014
26. For better appreciation of oral evidence of CW-1, it is relevant to go through the complaint averments and the further statement of CW-1. Ex.P-1 is the complaint. It is in the complaint that Siddamma/A-1 and Janardhana/A-2, all of a sudden started to spend lavishly. When, CW-1 asked about the same a month before, keeping the same in the mind, they started gossiping with the villagers and relatives about the character of his wife and coming to know about the same, Viji/A-4 and Veerabhadre Gowda @ Putta/A-3 started to give colour to the said gossip spread over by A-1 and 2 with others as well.
27. It is in the chief evidence of CW-1 that in the beginning, the accused who were doing coolie work were in good terms with his wife and as the time passed, accused started to spend money lavishly. Hence, he intended his wife to keep distance from them and instructed her to keep distance with the accused. Being annoyed by the same, accused used to 17 S.C.No.170/2014 gossip and make defamatory statements with their close relatives that the deceased was having illicit relationship with A-2.
28. At this stage itself it is important to note that it is in the cross examination of CW-1 that he has decided to keep the accused away because of their behaviors as they were talking nonsense against him and his family, but this reason is not stated by CW-1 either in his complaint at Ex.P-1 or in his chief evidence.
29. It is also in the complaint at Ex.P-1 that on 21.08.2011 at 2:00 p.m., Siddamma/A-1, Janardhan/A-2 and Veerabhadre Gowda/A-3 went to the house of his brother at Hosakerehalli and told with his brother's wife Smt.Lakshmamma/CW-7 that his wife Manjula/the deceased had illicit relationship with Janardhana/A-2 and it is better for her/Manjula/the deceased to die than to lead such a life. Smt.Lakshmamma/CW-7 told the same to her son 18 S.C.No.170/2014 Jagadish/CW-8 who intimated the same to him over phone.
30. It is in the chief evidence of CW-1 that on 21.08.2011, Sunday, when he had been to his native Huyalappanahalli, Maralavadi in Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, at about 2:00 p.m., all the accused met his sister-in-law Smt.Lakshmi/CW-7 and had made false allegation that deceased Manjula was having illicit relationship with A-2 and it is better to take away her life instead of living like this and the same was informed to him by Sri.Jagadish/CW-8. So, the addition in his evidence is that on that date, he had been to his native Huyalappanahalli.
31. But, CWs-7 and 8 who are respectively examined as PWs-10 and 11 completely turned hostile to the prosecution.
32. It is also in the complaint that on 22.08.2011 i.e. on the next day i.e. on the date of complaint, around 6:00 a.m., he intimated about the information 19 S.C.No.170/2014 given by CW-8/Smt.Lakshmamma to his wife Manjula/the deceased while leaving to office and also to lodge the complaint.
33. CW-1 has deposed in his chief evidence that on the next day, i.e. on 22.08.2011, since he had heavy workload in office, he informed his wife about the said gossip and consoled her and asked her to be brave and went to office and while leaving to office, he asked his son Prashantha/CW-2 to finish the bank work. So, the omission in his evidence is about lodging the complaint and the addition is that he asked his son to finish the bank work.
34. At this stage itself it is pertinent to note that it is in his cross examination that his brothers told that they will come on the next date and will decide. Hence, he did not give police compliant. It is also in his cross examination that since he had urgent work, thinking that on arrival of his brothers and the uncles of his wife, to decide about the issue, on that date, in 20 S.C.No.170/2014 the morning, he went to the office which are not stated either in the complaint at Ex.P-1 or in the chief evidence of CW-1.
35. It is in the complaint that on 22.08.2011 around 1:45 p.m., his son Prashanth/CW-2 called him and told that his wife hanged and died.
36. On the other hand, it is in his chief evidence that when he was in office, at about 12:45 p.m., his son Prashanth/CW-2 called him over phone and asked to come home immediately. When he enquired as to what is the matter, he said that "Mummy has hanged and committed suicide". So, the only contradiction is about the time when he received the information.
37. It is also in the complaint that immediately, he came to house and saw his wife committing suicide in the bedroom by hanging with a saree to the ceiling fan.
21 S.C.No.170/2014
38. On the other hand, it is in his chief evidence, when he reached home, he saw his wife has committed suicide by hanging to fan using a saree.
39. It is also in the complaint that the reason for his wife to commit suicide is the gossip made by A-1 to A-4 about the character of his wife and saying that it is better to die than leading such a life.
40. It is in his chief evidence that since A-1 to A-4 made defamatory statements about the character of his wife, she committed suicide. Accordingly, he gave the complaint at Ex.P-1. He has identified the accused persons and also the saree with which the deceased alleged to be committed suicide at MO.No.1.
41. It is in the further statement of CW-1 that as he was sad due to the death of his wife, he could not narrate the details of the incident in detail in the complaint and therefore, he gave his further statement on 23.08.2011 i.e., on the next day of the complaint. 22 S.C.No.170/2014
42. It is stated in the further statement of CW-1 that his wife Manjula/the deceased and A-1 Siddamma are sisters and natives of Tokkasandra and they were also neighbors and brought up together. His wife used to be well dressed with all jewelries whenever she visits to her native and she was the only daughter to her parents which made A-1 Siddamma to be jealous about his wife and she/A-1 was anger and was not talking with his wife.
43. CW-1 did not depose the above facts in his chief evidence and there is no cross examination as well with regard to the above facts.
44. It is also stated in the further statement of CW-1 that after the death of his father in law, his mother in law who is none other than his sister Smt.Gowramma/CW-3 came back to her native/parental village Huyyallappanahalli and thus, their house at Tokkasandra was left vacant. 23 S.C.No.170/2014
45. CW-1 did not depose anything with regard to the above facts. However, in his cross examination, CW-1 has admitted those facts. But, he has denied the suggestion that after the death of his wife, he sold the said house, but has deposed that he gave the said house to his brother in law i.e. the younger brother of his wife.
46. In his cross examination, CW-1 has also deposed that he does not know about the animosity if any between the accused and his father-in-law in respect of the said house, but there was no animosity between the accused persons and his wife in respect of the said house and he did not give any further statement before the police as to the animosity between his wife and the accused in respect of the said house, because of which, the accused made defamatory statements about the character of his wife.
47. But, in continuation, it is also stated in the further statement of CW-1 that for the reason that the 24 S.C.No.170/2014 house left vacant and for other small reasons, around 2 months back, there was a quarrel between the family members of A-1 Siddamma and Manjula/the deceased; because of which, A-1 Siddamma and her daughter A- 4 Vijayalakshmmi, her/Vijayalakshmi's husband A-2 Janardhana and nephew of Siddamma i.e the own son of her elder sister i.e. A-3 Virabhadre Gowda were quarreling with his wife and were continued the animosity with her.
48. It is also stated in the further statement of CW-1 that with mala fide intention, A-1 Siddamma, her daughter A-4 Vijayalakshmi @ Viji, A-3 Veerabhadre Gowda made gossip in the native place i.e. Tokasandra and in the villages of the relatives that his wife kept illicit relationship with A-2 Janardhna, who gave all the money/consideration amount of the land sold, to his wife/Manjula, out of which, his wife purchased jewelries, clothe and leading lavish life, it is better to die than leading such a life. A-2 Janarthan 25 S.C.No.170/2014 also used to tell with all, that he kept relationship with Manjula.
49. Since as noted above CW-1 has denied the suggestions with regard to the above facts, the above portions of his further statement is got exhibited as Ex.D-1 on behalf of the accused persons which contradictory to his oral evidence.
50. In continuation, it is also stated in the further statement of CW-1 that since the accused persons made the above gossip in respect of her character, his wife went into depression and he consoled her by telling that everything will be all right. But, CW-1 has not deposed in his oral evidence that because of the alleged gossip, his wife went into depression.
51. In continuation, it is also in the further statement of CW-1 that around a month back, his wife went his parental home and on the same day, A-1 Siddamma also went to the village and questioned his wife and kindled that how she got money, because of 26 S.C.No.170/2014 which also his wife was sad. When he told to lodge the complaint, his wife told that if they lodge the complaint, the issue will be disclosed to the public and the same will defame her and asked to wait for some time and thus, no complaint was lodged. But, CW-1 has deposed as if the above facts were stated by him.
52. It is also in the further statement of CW-1 that on 06.08.2011 around 10:00 p.m., all the accused came near their house and talked badly in respect of the character of his wife, told that his wife took all their money and jewelries, it is better to take away her life, quarreled with them and threatened that they will publish the same in the villages of their relatives and he consoled his wife.
53. CW-1 has not stated in respect of the above facts in his chief evidence. In his cross examination, he has deposed that on 16.08.2011, the accused persons came to his house and told that his sister-in-law Smt.Yashodamma/CW-9 abused them and asked him 27 S.C.No.170/2014 to come to have talk in that regard, he told that they will not come. He did not say about the same in his complaint and did not give any further statement in that regard.
54. So, there is nothing in the oral evidence of CW-1 with regard to the alleged defamatory statements made by the accused persons on 16.08.2011 in his house. On the other hand, the contradiction is that the accused persons called him/CW-1 to come to have talks in respect of the alleged abuse of CW-9. At this stage, it is also pertinent to that it is not the case of the prosecution that CW-9 abused the accused persons.
55. In continuation, the alleged incident dated 21.08.2011 stated in the complaint is reiterated in the further statement of CW-1. But, as noted above, CWs- 7 and 8 completely turned hostile. In addition, it is also stated in the further statement of CW-1 that when he told about the incident to his wife, she started 28 S.C.No.170/2014 weeping. He consoled her and went to the work by saying his wife that if the accused persons left without taking any action, they will not stop their acts and defame them/CW-1 and his wife, after finishing his work, he will come back and thereafter, will go to JP Nagar police station and lodge compliant. But, as noted above, there are many a contradictions in respect of not filing the complaint immediately.
56. The next witness is CW-2/PW-
2/Sri.Prashanth. Before venturing to his oral evidence, it is pertinent to go through his statement recorded at the time of inquest mahazar. It is in his statement that because of some animosity, A-1 Siddamma through her son-in-law with an intention to destroy their family, made gossip that his mother has illicit relationship with her son-in-law and published the same amongst their relatives.
57. It is also in his statement that on 21.08.2011, all the accused went to the house of 29 S.C.No.170/2014 Smt.Lakshmamma/CW-7 at Hosakerehalli and made the defamatory statements against the character of his mother and told that his mother has illicit relationship with A-2 Janardhana.
58. It is in the chief evidence of CW-2 that during April-May, 2011, all the accused came to their house and there was heated arguments with regard to the matter of his mother having illicit relationship, and all the accused had been to his native place and made a gossip with regard to the same with their relatives. So, the addition in the chief evidence of CW-2 is that the accused persons came to their house and there was heated argument.
59. He has also deposed that on 21.08.2011, all the accused visited the house of his aunty/CW- 7/Smt.Lakshamma situated in Hosakerehalli and made false defamatory statements that his deceased mother had illicit relationship with A-2 and one Sri.Jagadish his cousin/CW-8 informed the same to 30 S.C.No.170/2014 his father over phone. So, the contradiction is that CW-8 informed his father over phone. The said contradiction is got exhibited for the accused persons as Ex.D-2.
60. It is in continuation of his statement that his father told about the information to his mother in his presence and went to the work by saying that tomorrow will lodge the complaint.
61. It is in the chief evidence of CW-2 that since that was Sunday, his father had been to his native place. By hearing the said things, his mother had been to depression. Since his mother was sensitive, his father informed about the defamatory statements to him. But, the above facts find no place in the statement of CW-2.
62. At this stage, it is important to note that in his chief evidence CW-1 did not say that since his wife was sensitive, he told about the information he has received to his son/CW-2. On the other hand, it is in 31 S.C.No.170/2014 the cross examination of CW-1 that when he returned, since it was late in the night and his wife and son were sleeping, he did not discuss the issue with his wife and son. But, CW-2 even in his cross examination also deposed that his father told him about the information given by CW-8 in the night itself.
63. It is also in the chief evidence of CW-2 that on the next day on 22.08.2011 at about 6:00 a.m., his father while leaving to office, told about the last date's incident to his mother and had asked them not to worry and that he will return and give a police complaint. His father asked him to finish the bank work and left to office. So, the addition is about his father asking him to finish the bank work.
64. In continuation, it is in his statement that he was in the house. His brother had been to college. His mother was sleeping and since we had to go to Banashankari, he left the house at 10:45 a.m. and returned from Banashankari at 12:45 p.m. Thinking 32 S.C.No.170/2014 that his mother might have been sleeping. he went to the room and saw his mother committing suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan with a saree. Because of the defamatory statements of the accused persons, his mother committed suicide.
65. On the other hand, it is in his chief evidence that his mother was sleeping, he went to bank at 10:30 a.m., his brother had been to college and her mother was all alone at house. He returned from the bank at about 12:30 p.m., since there was traffic jam due to visit of some VIP.
66. He has also deposed that when he returned and called his mother twice there was no response, after drinking water in kitchen, when he opened the bedroom door, he saw that his mother had committed suicide by hanging, when he touched her body, he found that it was cooled and he could not get down the dead body.
33 S.C.No.170/2014
67. So, the contradiction is about the bank work, his calling his mother and having water before entering into the bedroom which find no place in his statement.
68. In addition, in continuation, he has also deposed that by that time, the cable operator had come to collect the cable bill and by taking his help along with two others, the dead body was got down and they informed the police and he called his father, brother and other relatives and informed the same. The above facts find no place in his statement.
69. On the other hand, it is in the cross examination of CW-1 that when he came to the house, the dead body of the deceased was still hanging. He does not know how the police got down the dead body. The police did not open the naught in his presence. But, CW-2 even in his cross examination has deposed that his father and relative came at 4:30 p.m. and by then the dead body was laid down in the hall. 34 S.C.No.170/2014
70. It is also in the chief evidence of CW-2 that since, all the accused made defamatory statements and gossip about his mother, she was shocked and humiliated and committed suicide.
71. The next witness is CW-5/Sri.T.S.Siddaraju, the junior uncle of the deceased to be deposed about the accused persons visiting their village and making defamatory statements against the deceased. He is examined as PW-3.
72. It is in his statement that the deceased Manjula is the daughter of his late elder brother T.S.Siddappa who was given in marriage to CW-1 of Huyyallappanahalli in June-1991 and were residing in the said village. In the year 1997, CW-1 shifted his family to Bengaluru and was leading a happy life with his wife/the deceased and children.
73. It is also in his statement that Siddamma/A-1 is the daughter of his senior aunt and also the elder sister of the deceased and both A-1 and the deceased 35 S.C.No.170/2014 were brought up together. The deceased since only one daughter to his elder brother, A-1 was jealous about the deceased. The deceased used dress well and wore fabulous dress, because of which also, A-1 was very much angry and was not talking with the deceased.
74. It is also stated in his statement that after the death of his brother, his sister-in-law/the wife of his elder brother/the mother of the deceased/CW-3 went back to her parental home/village i.e. Huyyalappananahalli, because of which their house at Tokasandra village left vacant, thus, there was a small quarrel between the family members of A-1 and the deceased around 2 months back. Therefore, A-1, her daughter Vijayalakshmi/A-4, her husband, Janardhana/A-2 and nephew of A-1 i.e. Veerabhadre Gowda/A-3 developed hatred against the deceased.
75. It is also in his statement that around 18 days back, A-1 and A-2 came to their village and told that "the deceased has illicit relationship with A-2 and 36 S.C.No.170/2014 got jewelries and questioned that whether the deceased can do so, she will not leave the deceased, she will ask to conduct panchaya in that regard, she will give publicity to the said facts amongst the relatives and will defame the deceased, it is better for the deceased to die than to live such a life". The villagers in and around the said place were hearing A-1. He has told that it is not fare to make such defamatory statements in the absence of the deceased.
76. It is also in his statement that later on 22.08.2011 around 2:00 p.m., his brother-in-law Sri.Umesh called him over phone and told about the death of the deceased and on enquiry, he came to know that A-1 to A-4 went near the house of the deceased on 06.08.2011 and made galata.
77. It is also in his statement that he has also learnt from CW-1 that on 21.08.2011 at 2:00 p.m., A-1 to A-3 went to the house of the elder brother of CW-1 and told his/CW-1's sister-in-law 37 S.C.No.170/2014 Smt.Lakshmma/CW-7 that the deceased has illicit relationship with A-2, got money, jewelries and destroying the life of her daughter/A-4, instead of doing so, it is better for the deceased to die.
78. It is also in his statement that he has also learnt from CW-1 that A-4 also made defamatory statements in the village about the character of the deceased, told that the deceased took the money and jewelries, how the deceased is living and she will see that how the deceased will live.
79. It is also in his statement that CW-1 told him that A-2 also told that the deceased kept him, called him to her house frequently and received all money and jewelries from him and did not give them back. He will not leave her and will publish these facts in the village.
80. It is also in his statement that CW-1 told him that A-3 also told that the deceased is characterless and destroyed the life of A-4 and all the above facts 38 S.C.No.170/2014 were told to him/CW-1 by Jagadish s/o Lakshmamma i.e. CW-8 and CW-1 told all the above facts to the deceased on 22.08.2011 before leaving to the office, consoled her and told that on his return from the office, they would file compliant in JP Nagar police station.
81. It is also in his statement that he has also came to know from CW-1 that around 12:45 p.m., his/CW-1's son Prashantha/CW-2 called him over phone and told that his mother/the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Immediately, he/CW-1 rushed to the house and saw his wife committing suicide by hanging with a saree to the ceiling fan in the bedroom and accordingly, he has lodged the complaint before JP Nagar police station.
82. It is also in his statement that accordingly, he prayed to take action against the accused persons on humiliation of whose defamatory statements, the deceased committed suicide.
39 S.C.No.170/2014
83. So, in respect of the alleged facts that A-1 Siddamma was jealous about the deceased as she was the only daughter brought up with utmost care; used to dress well with fabulous clothe and jewelries; the quarrel between the family members of A-1 Siddamma and the deceased in respect of the vacant house at Tokasandra, because of which A-1 to 4 developed hatred with the deceased and started to make defamatory statements against the deceased amongst the relatives and the alleged incident taken 18 days before the date of incident, CW-5 is the direct witness. So far the rest of the facts in his statements noted above, it is hearsay.
84. It is in the chief evidence of CW-5 that the deceased Manjula was his niece. CW-1 is husband of deceased Manjula and he knows all the accused who are his relatives. The deceased Manjula was married to CW-1 during the year 1991 and after the marriage, Manjula was living in Huyalappanahalli village along 40 S.C.No.170/2014 with CW-1 and then they shifted to Bengaluru and they were in cordial relationship with each other and lived happily along with two children.
85. Except the evidence with regard to the deceased living happily with CW-1 and her children, rest of the above evidence of CW-5 is not in dispute.
86. It is also in his chief evidence that the deceased Manjula was the only daughter of his brother and when she visited the village, she used to wear fabulous clothe. After the death of the father of Manjula, her mother was shifted to Huyalappanahalli village. A-1 was neighbourer of Manjula at Thokasandra and after the death of father of Manjula, they shifted their family to Huyalappanahalli and during the said period, the house in Thokasandra was vacant and there was dispute between A-1 and deceased Manjula in respect of the said house at Thokasandra.
41 S.C.No.170/2014
87. Except the evidence with regard to the alleged dispute between A-1 and the deceased in respect of the house at Tokasandra, the rest of the above evidence of CW-5 is also not in dispute.
88. It is also in the chief evidence of CW-5 that one day at about 4½ to 5 years back, all the accused came in front of his house and said that the deceased Manjula has illicit relationship with A-2 and she has purchased clothe and jewelry from the money of A-2 and it is better to die instead of living by making property illegally, he advised them that it is not fare to make such defamatory statements and they returned.
89. The above evidence of CW-5 is in corroboration with the relevant para in his statement noted above.
90. It is also in his chief evidence that 15 days after the said incident, at about 2:00 p.m., he received a phone call from his brother-in-law Umesh that Manjula has committed suicide by hanging in 42 S.C.No.170/2014 Bengaluru and he came to Bengaluru at about 3:30 p.m. and when he enquired CW-1 about the incident, CW-1 revealed that A-1 went to his relative Lakshmamma's house and made defamatory statements regarding the conduct of Manjula and since Lakshmamma revealed the same to his son Jagadish, same was informed to him/CW-1 by Jagadish.
91. So, CW-5 did not depose about the relevant para in his statement noted above with regard to his coming to know about the alleged incident dated 06.08.2011 and as noted above, it is in his statement that A-1 to A-3 had gone to the house of Lakshmamma, but in his chief evidence he did not depose about A-2 and A-3 going to the house of Lakshmamma. Moreover, as observed above, CWs-7 and 8 completely turned hostile.
92. It is also in his chief evidence that since all the accused made defamatory statements against deceased Manjula with all the relatives, she was 43 S.C.No.170/2014 humiliated by the same and committed suicide. So, he has not deposed anything specially about the alleged defamatory statements of the other accused i.e. accused Nos.2 to 4 which found place in his statement noted above and also about the accused making defamatory statements with the relatives about the character of the deceased.
93. In his cross examination even he has denied the suggestion that there is animosity between him and A-1, he has deposed that there is no talks between them since around 5 years. He has admitted the suggestion that the clothe and the jewelries alleged to be worn by the deceased were all bought by CW-1 after the marriage. He has also deposed that the accused persons personally told before him that the deceased got the clothe and jewelries from the A-2.
94. He has also deposed that around 15 days back to the date of incident, all the accused came to his house and told that the deceased had illicit 44 S.C.No.170/2014 relationship with A-2. All of them came in TATA SUMO vehicle and he does not know the registration number of the said vehicle. By that time, there were his wife, two children i.e. Santhosh and Anilkumar as well as his neighbour Muddegowda were present.
95. But the presence of his wife, two children and the neighbor Muddegowda finds no place in his statement and none of the above are either cited as witnesses in the charge sheet or got examined before the Court by the prosecution.
96. It is also in his cross examination that after around 3 - 4 days, police took his statement in the station. He has denied the suggestion that in his statement he has stated that only A-1 and 2 came. He has further deposed that A-3 and 4 also came. He intimated about the visit of the accused persons to CW-1 after around 3 - 4 days. They were thinking about getting conducted the panchayath and in the meanwhile, the deceased committed suicide. 45 S.C.No.170/2014
97. But, in his statement there is no mention with regard to the presence of A-4 along with A-1 to 3 and as noted above, in his chief evidence also he has deposed only with regard to the presence of A-1. His above evidence with regard to thinking of getting conducted the panchayath, the same finds no place either in his statement or in his chief evidence.
98. The defence of the accused persons i.e. there was difference of opinion between CW-1 and the deceased in respect of the house and they were not in cordial relation. CW-1 was harassing the deceased, because of which the deceased committed suicide was suggested to CW-5 by way of suggestion which is in turn denied by him.
99. The other defence i.e. A-2 had money by selling his lands. CW-1 raised loan from A-2 and returned partial amount and remained in due, towards which CW-1 and A-2 had hatred, because of which CW-1 falsely got implicated the accused persons in 46 S.C.No.170/2014 this suicide case is also suggested to CW-5 and he has denied those suggestions.
100. It is also suggested to CW-5 that he is in cordial relation with CW-1 and in animosity with the accused persons, thus, to help CW-1, he gave false evidence, which is also denied by CW-5.
101. The next witness is CW-6/Smt.Kausalya is the niece of CW-1 and to be deposed about the defamatory statements made by the accused persons to her over phone and the accused persons intimating her about their defamatory statements in the village about the character of the deceased.
102. It is in her statement that Siddamma/A-1 had been making phone call to her to know about the village affairs. The deceased was brought up with Siddamma/A-1 who was jealous about the deceased as the deceased was the only daughter to her parents. The deceased used to dress well and wear fabulous 47 S.C.No.170/2014 clothe. Because of which Siddamma/A-1 was anger and was not talking with the deceased.
103. It is also in her statement that in Tokasandra village, the houses of the deceased and Siddamma/A-1 were adjoining houses. After the death of the father of the deceased, her mother Gowramma/CW-3 went back to her parental home/village i.e. Huyyalappananahalli, because of which their house at Tokasandra village was vacant, thus, there was a small quarrel between the family members of Siddamma/A-1 and deceased Manjula around 2 months back. Therefore, Siddamma/A-1, her daughter Vijayalakshmi/A-4, her son-in-law, Janardhana/A-2 and nephew Veerabhadre Gowda/A-4 developed hatred against the deceased Manjula.
104. It is also in her statement that on 03.08.2011 around 8:00 a.m., Siddamma/A-1 called her over phone and told that "the deceased has illicit relationship with her son-in-law, whether the deceased 48 S.C.No.170/2014 can do so, she will not leave the deceased, she will ask to conduct panchayath in that regard, she will tell about the same to the relatives and will defame the deceased, it is better for the deceased to die than to live such a life".
105. It is also in her statement that thereafter, she gave the phone to her son-in-law/A-2 who told that "the deceased is not good, he has an eye over her from the beginning, she was not hearing him, he will destroy her life by hook or crook, he will say before everybody that he has illicit relation with the deceased".
106. It is also in her statement that later, Veerabhadre Gowda/A-3 talked in the phone and told that "the deceased kept relationship with Janardhana/A-2 and she is a prostitute".
107. It is also in her statement that later, Vijayalakshimi/A-4 talked in the phone and told that 49 S.C.No.170/2014 "the deceased is a characterless lady and kept her husband and they will not leave the deceased".
108. It is also in her statement that with mala fide intention, Siddamma/A-1, her daughter Vijayalakshmi/A-4 and Veerabhadre Gowda/A-3 made defamatory statements against the deceased in their native Tokasandra and in the villages of the relatives that the deceased has illicit relationship with Janardhana/A-2, Janardhana/A-2 gave all the money he had from selling the lands and out of the said amount, the deceased purchased jewelries and fabulous clothe, it is better for the deceased to die than to lead such a life. Janardhana/A-2 used to say with everybody that the deceased is his keep.
109. It is also in her statement that the deceased was saying that because of the defamatory statements of the accused persons, she is feeling bad and not wishing to visit the village and she went in depression. She and her relatives used to console the deceased. 50 S.C.No.170/2014
110. It is also in her statement that later on 22.08.2011 around 2:00 p.m., her relatives called her over phone and told about the death of the deceased and on enquiry with CW-1, she came to know that Siddamma/A-1, his daughter Viji/A-4, son-in-law Janardhana/A-2 and her nephew Veerabhadre Gowda/A-3 went near their house on 06.08.2011 at 10:00 p.m. and made galata, abused the deceased with filthy language and made defamatory statements against her and gave life threat to her.
111. It is also in her statement that CW-1 has also told her that on 21.08.2011 at 2:00 p.m., Siddamma/A-1, Janardhana/A-2 and Veerabhadre Gowda/A-3 went to the house of his elder brother at Hosakerehalli and Siddamma/A-1 told his sister-in- law Lakshmamma/CW-7 that "the deceased Manjula has illicit relationship with her son-in-law Janardhana/A-2, got money, jewelries and destroying 51 S.C.No.170/2014 the life of her daughter, instead of doing so, it is better for the deceased to die".
112. It is also in her statement that CW-1 has also told that Vijayalakshmi/A-4 also made defamatory statements in the village about the character of the deceased, told that "the deceased took the money and jewelries, how the deceased is living and she will see that how the deceased will live".
113. It is also in her statement that CW-1 also told her that Janardhana/A-2 also told that "the deceased Manjula kept him, called him to her house frequently and received all money and jewelries from him and did not give them back. He will not leave her and will publish these facts in the village".
114. It is also in her statement that CW-1 told him that Veerabhadre Gowda/A-3 also told that the deceased Manjula is characterless and destroyed the life of Vijayalkshmi/A-4 and all the above facts were told to him by Jagadisha s/o Lakshmamma i.e. CW-8 52 S.C.No.170/2014 and CW-1 told all the above facts to the deceased on 22.08.2011 before leaving to the office, consoled her and told that on his return from the office, they would file compliant in JP Nagar police station.
115. It is also in her statement that she has also came to know from CW-1 that around 12:45 p.m., his son Prashantha/CW-2 called him over phone and told that his mother/the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Immediately, he rushed to the house and saw his wife committing suicide by hanging with a saree to the ceiling fan in the bedroom and accordingly, he has lodged the complaint before JP Nagar police station.
116. It is also in her statement that accordingly, she prayed to take action against the accused persons on humiliation of whose defamatory statements, the deceased committed suicide.
117. So, in respect of the alleged facts that A-1 Siddamma was jealous about the deceased as she was the only daughter brought up with utmost care; used 53 S.C.No.170/2014 to dress well with fabulous clothe and jewelries; the quarrel between the family members of A-1 Siddamma and the deceased in respect of the vacant house at Tokasandra, because of which A-1 to 4 developed hatred with the deceased and started to make defamatory statements against the deceased amongst the relatives and the alleged incident taken 03.08.2011, CW-6 is the direct witness. So far the rest of the facts in her statements noted above, they are hearsay.
118. It is in the chief evidence of CW-6 that she knows all the accused and also deceased Manjula who is her cousin. After the marriage, CW-1 along with Manjula was living in Huyalappanahalli for some time and they had two children and in order to provide good education to the children, they shifted to Bengaluru and they were in cordial relation with each other.
119. Except her evidence with regard to the cordial relationship between the family members of the 54 S.C.No.170/2014 deceased, the rest of the above evidence of CW-6 is not in dispute.
120. It is also in her chief evidence that the houses of A-1 Siddamma and deceased Manjula were situated beside one another. Manjula used to visit the house. Manjula was the only daughter and was brought up with utmost care, love and affection. Since Manjula used to wear good clothe and wear jewelry whenever she visited the village, A-1 had developed jealous against Manjula and there used to be small quarrels between A-1 and Manjula some times. Before two months to the date of incident, there was a quarrel between A-1 and Manjula.
121. She has also deposed that on 03.08.2011 at about 8:00 a.m., A-1 Siddamma called her and said that "Manjula is having misconduct and she is purchasing the jewels from the money of her son-in- law which he has from selling the property and that 55 S.C.No.170/2014 she will not leave Manjula and she would arrange for Panchayath and defame her image".
122. She has also deposed that A-2 Janardhan also continued to talk on the same call and told that "he has an eye on Manjula, she is not yielding to him and he will look after her".
123. She has also deposed that A-3 took the call and scolded Manjula in filthy language and told that "Manjula is a prostitute and has illicit relationship with Janardhana/A-2".
124. She has also deposed that A-4 also called her and said that "Manjula has illicit relationship with her husband Janardhana/A-2 and she will not leave Manjula".
125. She has also deposed that all the accused went in a car to the houses of all the relatives and made defamatory statements against Manjula. Manjula used to tell her that she is humiliated by the act of the accused and after few days, Manjula committed 56 S.C.No.170/2014 suicide on 21.08.2011 by hanging since all the accused made defamatory statements against her.
126. So, except her above evidence that all the accused went in a car to the houses of the relatives and made defamatory statements against the deceased, all the other evidence noted above deposed by CW-6 is in corroboration with her statement.
127. But, it is the cross examination that Manjula was wearing casual sarees. She has admitted the suggestions that normally ladies are jealous about the lady wearing good clothe and the jewelry. She has deposed that the distance between her husband's house and Tokasandra is 16 K.M. She used to go with Manjula to Tokasandra.
128. So, the evidence of CW-6 in her cross examination noted above that the deceased was wearing casual sarees is contradictory to her chief evidence and her statement that the deceased used to wear fabulous clothe and her evidence that she used to 57 S.C.No.170/2014 go to Tokasandra with Manjula/the deceased finds no place either in her chief evidence or in her statement and thus, it appears that it is an improvement.
129. It is also in her cross examination that A-1 Siddamma talking with anger whenever Manjula wore good clothe and jewelry. Thus, she came to know that Siddamma is jealous about Manjula. But, as noted above, in her cross examination, CW-6 has deposed that the deceased was wearing casual sarees.
130. It is also in her cross examination that the accused persons called to her mobile phone and talked in between 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. By that time, none were there with her. All the accused called her from the same mobile number, but she does not know the said number. She gave her number to the police. Police did not collect her mobile phone.
131. It is also in her cross examination that she made note of the date on which the accused persons called her. She knows personally about the defamatory 58 S.C.No.170/2014 statements made by the accused persons against Manjula with their relatives as she came to know about the same from her uncle's daughter Sukanya, Prema and Puttappa. But, none of the above persons were either cited in the charge sheet or examined on behalf of the prosecution.
132. The defence taken in the cross examination of CW-5 noted above are also suggested to CW-6 which are in turn denied by her.
133. As noted above, CWs-7 and 8 turned hostile and the next witness is CW-9/Smt.Yashodamma who is the sister-in-law of CW-1 and to be deposed about the phone call of A-1 on 06.08.2011 and making defamatory statements about the character of the deceased and her intimating the same to CW-1.
134. In her statement the relationship between the witnesses and the accused persons as well as the deceased is stated, which is not in dispute. In addition, with regard to the incident, it is in her statement that 59 S.C.No.170/2014 both Siddamma/A-1 and Manjula/the deceased were brought up together. Since Manjula is the only daughter to their parents, Siddamma/A-1 was jealous about Manjula. Manjula used to dress well and wear jewelries whenever she visited the village. Because of which, Siddamma/A-1 was anger and was not talking with Manjula.
135. It is also in her statement that apart from that in Tokasandra Village, the houses of Manjula and Siddamma/A-1 were situated beside. After the death of father of Manjula, her mother Gowramma/CW-3, came to her maternal village Huyyalapppanahalli. Because of which, the house of Manjula at Tokasandra was kept vacant. In respect of the said house, for some silly reasons, around two months back, there was quarrel between Manjula and the family members of Siddamma/A-1. Due to which, Siddamma/A-1, her daughter Vijayalakshmi/A-4, Vijayalakshmi's husband 60 S.C.No.170/2014 Janaradhana/A-2 and Siddamma's niece Veerabhadre Gowda/A-4 developed hatred with Manjula.
136. It is also in her statement that because of all the above, Siddamma/A-1, Vijayalakshmi/A-4 and Veerabhadre Gowda/A-4 made defamatory statements with their relatives about the character of Manjula that Manjula kept Janardhana/A-2; Janardhana/A-2 gave all the money he had by selling his assets and out of the said money, Manjula had purchased the jewelries and clothe and it is better to die than to lead such a life.
137. It is also in her statement that Janardhana/A-2 also went on saying that he kept Manjula. Because of which, Manjula was telling that due to the attitude and behaviour of the accused persons, she is feeling bad and Manjula was in pain. She, Manjula's mother Gowramma/CW-3 and husband Narasimhaiah/CW-1 were consoling her by 61 S.C.No.170/2014 saying that everything will be alright in passage of time.
138. It is also in her statement that on 06.08.2011 around 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., Siddamma/A-1 made call to their house and told that "your sister in law (Manjula) kept my son-in-law Janardhana/A-2, should she do like that, I will not leave her, will arrange panchayath, will say to all our relatives and defame her (Manjula), let her die, than living like this and she will put to an end to it and etc.,".
139. It is also in her statement that she told Siddamma/A-1 not to say like that; Manjula is not such a lady and she is a good lady who advises everybody and she will not do so. Later she called her brother-in-law Narasimhaiah/CW-1 and told about the phone call of Siddamma/A-1 and asked him not to abuse Manjula who is a sensitive lady and not such a lady as told by Siddamma/A-.
62 S.C.No.170/2014
140. It is also in her statement that on 22.08.2011 around 12:00 in the noon, her brother-in- law's son Prashanth/CW-2 called her over phone and told that her mummy/the deceased committed suicide.
141. It is also in her statement that later on enquiry, she came to know from CW-1 who was weeping that on 06.08.2011 at 10:00 p.m., Siddamma/A-1, Janardhana/A-2 and Veerabhadre Gowda/A-3 went near his/CW-1/s house and made galata and on 21.08.2011 around 2:00 p.m., Siddamma/A-1, Janardhana/A-2 and Veerabhadre Gowda/A-3 went to the house of her elder brother at Hoasakerehalli and told before his/CW-1's sister-in- law i.e. Smt.Lakshmamma/CW-7 that "your brother- in-law Narasimhaiah/CW-1's wife Manjula is keeping illicit relationship with my son-in-law Janardhana/A-2 and took all his money and jewelries, destroyed the life of her/A-1/Siddamma's daughter Vijayalakshimi/A-4, instead of doing so, it is better to die". 63 S.C.No.170/2014
142. It is also in her statement that CW-1 had also told that Siddamma/A-1's daughter Vijayalakshmi/A-4 also told that "she will give publicity in the village that Manjula is a characterless lady destroyed our money and jewelries, how she is living and I will see how she will live".
143. It is also in her statement that CW-1 also told that Janardhana/A-2 also told that "Manjula kept him, took all the money and jewelries with him and did not return them, I will not leave her, I will publish the fact that she kept me and did all these things".
144. It is also in her statement that CW-1 had also told that Veerabhadre Gowda/A-3 also told that Manjula is characterless and destroyed the life of Vijayalakshmi/A-4".
145. It is also in her statement that CW-1 told that he came to know all the above stated allegations made by the accused persons from the son of Smt.Lakshmamma/CW-7 i.e. Jagadish/CW-8 and told 64 S.C.No.170/2014 about the same to his wife Manjula on 22.08.2011 in the morning before he leave to the office, consoled her and told that "they/accused persons started to make allegations, if they left without any action, they well defame, he will come back after finishing work, will lodge complaint before the JP Nagar police station and you be brave".
146. It is also in her statement that CW-1 also told that in the afternoon, around 12:45 p.m., his son Prashantha/CW-2 called him over phone and told that his mother hanged and died. Immediately, he rushed to the home and found Manjula hanging with a saree to the ceiling fan of the bed room and died. Later, he lodged the complaint to the JP Nagar police.
147. It is also in her statement that Siddamma/A-1 gossiped that Manjula kept illicit relationship with her son-in-law, because of which her brother-in-law's wife Manjula suffered, went into depression and committed suicide. Hence, prayed for 65 S.C.No.170/2014 action against Siddamma/A-1, her daughter Viji/A-4, son-in-law Janradhana/A-2 and her niece Veerabhadre Gowda/A-3.
148. So, in respect of the alleged jealous of Siddamma about the well dress and jewelries of Manjula, the quarrel alleged to be taken place around 2 months back in respect of the house kept vacant at Tokasandra in between Manjula and the family members of Siddamma/A-1 and incident taken on 06.08.2011 i.e. with regard to the phone call made by Siddamma/A-1 on 06.08.2011 at 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., she is direct witness, CW-9 is the direct witness. So far the rest of the facts in her statements noted above, it is hearsay.
149. CW-9 has deposed in her chief evidence that CW-1 had married Manjula about 19 years back and after her marriage, Manjula was living in Huyalappanahalli. A-1 and Manjula are cousins. Since Manjula was the only daughter to her parents 66 S.C.No.170/2014 she used to wear good clothe and jewelry. Due to which, A-1 had developed jealous against her.
150. CW-9 has also deposed that when Manjula was residing in Huyappanahalli, A-1 used to quarrel with Manjula saying that Manjula had illicit relationship with her son-in-law Janardhan/A-2 and he has sold the property and bought Manjula the clothe and jewelry and accused used to gossip the same with all the relatives.
151. She has also deposed that A-2 to 4 used to make defamatory statements that Manjula had illicit relationship with A-2 Janardhan and due to the same, Manjula was humiliated and was under depression and she used to tell that she will die.
152. She has also deposed that about 15 days prior to the death of Manjula, one day, A-1 had called her and said that Manjula is in illicit relationship with A-2 Janardhan and when she enquired the same with A-2, he said that he had illicit relationship with 67 S.C.No.170/2014 Manjula and that he used to buy whatever she needs. After that Manjula left food and used to spend days by thinking about the same. A-1 along with A-2 to 4 used to make defamatory statements against Manjula
153. But, the above evidence of CW-9 with regard to her making call to A-2 and the enquiry as well as reply of A-2 and Manjula leaving food and spending days by thinking about the defamatory statements of the accused persons find no place in her statement.
154. CW-9 has also deposed in her chief examination that about six years back, one Sunday, Manjula had visited her Village. At that time, CW-1 told that Manjula is very much bothering about the act of all the accused and requested her to console and advise Manjula. This evidence of CW-9 is also not forthcoming in her statement noted above.
155. It is also in the chief evidence of CW-9 that about six years back, one day Prasanna, the elder son of Manjula called her and informed that Manjula has 68 S.C.No.170/2014 committed suicide by hanging in the bedroom. On knowing the same, they all went to Bengaluru. Because of the wrong publicity with regard to conduct of Manjula by all the accused, Manjula was humiliated and has committed suicide and she gave statement before the police in that regard.
156. So, CW-9 did not depose anything with regard the facts/incidents she came to know from CW- 1 which find place in her statement noted above.
157. It is in her cross examination that she came to know about the alleged illicit relationship of Manjula with A-2 Janardhana on the say of A-1 Siddamma. The other accused persons also told her about the said illicit relationship on the different occasions and by that time, her husband Puttegowda was with her. She has stated the same before the police while giving statement.
158. But, there is no whisper about the presence of her husband Puttegowda either in her statement or 69 S.C.No.170/2014 in her chief evidence and he/her husband Puttegowda is also neither stated as witness in the charge sheet nor examined before the Court.
159. It is also in her cross examination that she knows that accused persons were jealous about Manjula wearing fabulous clothe and jewelries, apart from that she does not know what were with/in the minds of the accused persons.
160. It is also in her cross examination that around 6 years back, all the accused persons came in a car and told about Manjala and it was afternoon. She does not know the car number and A-3 was the driver. She has also deposed that she told CW-1 whatever stated by Manjula. These facts find no place in her statement observed above.
161. The defence of the accused persons that CW-1 was forcing and harassing the deceased to sell the house at Tokasandra; they all know about the same; with an apprehension that the suicide of the 70 S.C.No.170/2014 deceased may come on CW-1, since CW-1 is her brother-in-law, to help him, she gave false evidence was suggested to CW-9 and she denied the same.
162. The other witnesses i.e. the corroborative witnesses came to know about the alleged gossip which led the deceased to depression resulting in her committing suicide are CWs-3 and 8.
163. CW-3 Smt.Gowramma is the mother of the deceased. It is in her statement in the inquest mahazar at Ex.P-5 that the deceased Manjula is her only daughter who was given in marriage to her brother Narasimhaiah/CW-1 working in Central Silk Board, Vijayapura and her daughter had 2 sons. These facts are not in dispute.
164. It is also in her statement that A-1 Siddamma is the sister of her/CW-3's husband who had an eye over her daughter since from the beginning and was making defamatory statements against her daughter Manjula. Siddamma/A-1, her son-in-law- 71 S.C.No.170/2014 Janardhana/A-2, Veerabhadre Gowda @ Putta/A-3 and Smt.Viji/A-4 in conspiration with each other made gossip that her daughter Manjula has illicit relationship with Janardhana/A-2.
165. It is also in her statement that the accused persons made defamatory statements before Smt.Laskhmma of Hosakere/CW-7 about the character of her daughter Manjula and Janaradhana/A-2 told that he has illicit relationship with Manjula.
166. It is also in her statement that the son of Smt.Lakshmamma i.e. Sri.Jagadish/CW-8 called her brother/CW-1 over phone and told about the defamatory statements made by the accused persons before his mother Smt.Lakshmamma/CW-7.
167. It is also in her statement that her brother/CW-1 told her on 22.08.2011 that he will lodge the police complaint. Her daughter/the deceased 72 S.C.No.170/2014 who was sensitive, humiliated by the acts of the accused persons, committed suicide.
168. The contents of her further statement dated 23.08.2011 are similar to the statements of CWs-5, 6 and 9 noted above and they demonstrate that CW-3 is the direct witness with regard facts of the alleged jealous of Siddamma/A-1 about the well dress of her daughter with fabulous clothe and jewelries, the quarrel alleged to be taken place around 2 months back in respect of the house kept vacant at Tokasandra in between Manjula and the family members of Siddamma/A-1. But, so far the alleged incidents dated 06.08.2011 and 21.08.2011, she is hearsay witness.
169. CW-3 has deposed about the relationship between the parties which is not in dispute. She has also deposed about the alleged jealous of A-1 against the deceased as she was the only daughter brought up with utmost love and care; as the deceased used to 73 S.C.No.170/2014 dress well with fabulous clothe and jewelries and thus, A-1 was not talking with her daughter.
170. But, it is in her cross examination that since A-1 was not talking with her daughter, she told that A- 1 is jealous about her daughter and by the attitude of A-1 she came to know that A-1 is jealous about her daughter.
171. CW-3 has also deposed about her daughter's visit to Tokasandra to see their house kept vacant; the alleged quarrel of A-1 with her daughter in respect of the said house.
172. But, it is in her cross examination that 2 months before the death of her daughter, there was quarrel and the quarrel was for 2 times. But, she does not about the quarrel after they leaving Tokasandra. But, it is the case of the prosecution that the quarrel took place whenever the deceased came to see the house left vacant and the house left vacant when her mother/CW-3 left Tokasandra.
74 S.C.No.170/2014
173. CW-3 has also deposed about the allegations of the accused persons that her daughter kept illicit relationship with A-2 and purchased the clothe and jewelries out of the money of A-2.
174. But in her cross examination she has deposed that her daughter told her about the alleged defamatory statements of the accused persons that she has illicit relationship with A-2 and she did not try to get confirmed the same by making call to her relatives. It is also in her cross examination that neither A-2 nor the other accused told before her that her daughter has illicit relationship with A-2.
175. So, her chief evidence in respect of the alleged defamatory statements of the accused persons against her daughter is of no use to the prosecution.
176. CW-3 has also deposed that her daughter was very much sad and called her over phone and told that due to the act of the accused persons, she/her daughter went into depression and she consoled her 75 S.C.No.170/2014 daughter. Her daughter was thinking of lodging complaint and she advised not to lodge the complaint and the things will be set right.
177. But, as noted above, it is in the further statement of CW-1 that he intends to lodge the complaint and his wife/the deceased told not to lodge the complaint as the same will defame her. But, in his chief evidence CW-1 has stated that he consoled his wife to wait and the things will be set right in passage of time.
178. So, the evidence of CWs-1 and 3 in this regard and the evidence of CW-1 himself in his evidence and in his further statement are contradictory to each other.
179. In the cross examination of CW-3, the defence of the accused person that the CW-1 was forcing the deceased to sell the house at Tokasanra and was harassing her in that regard; her daughter and CW-1 were not in cordial relationship; with an 76 S.C.No.170/2014 apprehension that the suicide of the deceased will come on CW-1, they falsely implicated the accused persons was put forth to CW-3 by way of suggestions which were in turn denied by her.
180. The next independent witness is CW- 4/Smt.Usharani, a hear say witness in respect of the alleged incident and a witness to the inquest mahazar at Ex.P-5. She is examined as PW-9.
181. It is in her statement in the inquest mahazar that CW-1 is her co-league official. She identified the dead body of the deceased who is the wife of CW-1 by name Manjula who have two sons.
182. It is also in her statement that on 22.08.2011 in the morning when CW-1 came to the office, he was disturbed and the enquiry revealed that the accused Siddamma, Janardhana, Veerabhadra and Smt.Viji made gossip about the character of his wife among their relatives.
77 S.C.No.170/2014
183. It is also in her statement that on 21.08.2011, the accused made false statements about the character of his wife with his relatives who called him/CW-1 over phone and intimated the same who in turn informed the same to his wife and told to lodge the complaint to JP Nagar police station; his wife is very sensitive and he left his son in the house.
184. It is also in her statement that around 1:00 p.m., CW-1 came weeping and told that his son called him over phone and told that his wife committed suicide. They accompanied CW-1 to the house and participated as witness to the inquest mahazar.
185. In her chief evidence she has reiterated the above noted facts in her statement. However, with regard to the alleged incident, admittedly, she is a hearsay witness and she is direct witness only with regard to the inquest mahazar and the identification of the dead body.
78 S.C.No.170/2014
186. It is in her chief evidence that they found the dead body of the deceased in the hall which was taken to the hospital for PM examination. She also went to the hospital wherein the police conducted the inquest mahazar. But, as per the police papers, the inquest mahazar was conducted in the house of CW-1.
187. As noted above, it is in the evidence of CWs- 1 and 4 that when they came to the house, they found the dead body laid on the ground/in the hall. It is in the evidence of CW-2 that he got the dead body down with the help of cable people. On the other hand, it is in Ex.P-5 that at the time of inquest mahazar, with the help of the people, they dead body was got down and laid on the bed over the ground. So, the evidence on record with regard to getting the dead body down, there is contradictions.
188. The next witness examined is CW-14 Dr.S.R.Jagannath who did the PM examination of the dead body of the deceased. He is examined as PW-7 79 S.C.No.170/2014 and has deposed that on 22.08.2011 at 7:30 pm, he received requisition from PSI, JP Nagara police station to conduct PM examination of the dead body of Smt.Manjula. Accordingly, he had conducted post mortem examination on the same day, in between 7:35 p.m. to 8:35 p.m.
189. He has also deposed that on the examination of dead body, he found out a ligature mark present over neck, measuring 18 x 2 cm., and it was absent over left side and back of the neck for 20 cms., on the dissection of neck, no injuries were found. The ligature material was also sent along with the body for examination which was a pink and brown colored multi designed saree and after examination, it was sent back through the police by packing sealing and labeling in the same along with the sample seal.
190. It is also in his chief evidence that in his opinion, the cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. By mentioning the above facts and 80 S.C.No.170/2014 cause of death, he issued PM examination report at Ex.P-2 wherein his signature is Ex.P-2(a). He has identified the sample seal at Ex.P-3 and his signature at Ex.P-3(a). He has identified the saree at MO-1 as the saree he had examined and his signature at MO-1(b).
191. In his cross examination it is elicited that he has not mentioned the approximate time of death in Ex.P-2. Based on PM examination, he has stated that the ligature mark is anti mortem injury. He did not take the photograph of the ligature mark over the dead body. He did not video graphed the PM examination of the dead body.
192. Based on the above evidence, it is the arguments of the counsel for the accused persons that the time of death is not corroborated by any evidence. No photo is on record to show the alleged ligature mark over the dead body which prima facie appears correct.
81 S.C.No.170/2014
193. It is also elicited that he does not remember the exact date of which he sent MO.No.1 along with sample seal at Ex.P-3, but they were sent along with PM report. MO.No.1 was presented before him without any seal.
194. Based on the above evidence, it is the arguments of the counsel for the accused persons that there no evidence to show the seizure of saree. There is even no mention in the inquest mahazar about the description of the saree and there is no PF as well.
195. The PF is on record. But, as rightly argued, there is no mention in the inquest mahazar at Ex.P-5 about the seizure of MO.No.1.
196. It is suggested that there was no ligature mark and it is not a case of hanging which is denied by CW-14.
197. The next witness examined is CW-15 Sri.Sundar Rao the then Head Constable who presented the dead body for PM examination and after 82 S.C.No.170/2014 PM examination handed over the dead body to the relatives by getting endorsement. He is examined as PW-8 and has deposed that on 21.08.2012, in the evening he was on beat. By that time, CW-16, the then PSI Sri KR.Manjunath called him to JP Nagara, 1st phase, near Muneshwara Temple and deputed him for carrying the dead body of deceased Smt.Manjula who had committed suicide by hanging, to the KIMS Hospital for PM examination.
198. It is also in his chief evidence that as per the said directions, he transported the dead body and presented the same before the medical officer at 7:30 pm., along with form No.146(1) and (2) and the requisition of the PSI for PM examination and after the PM examination, he had handed over the dead body to her cousin Sri.Suresh.
199. He has also deposed that on 02.09.2011, CW-16 deputed him to bring the PM examination report. Accordingly, he went to the hospital, obtained 83 S.C.No.170/2014 the PM examination report along with a sample seal and the ligature material and produced the same before CW-16 along with his report Ex.P-4. He identified the same and his signature at Ex.P-4(a).
200. He has also deposed that he saw the MO-1 over the dead body while shifting the same to the hospital and he identified the same.
201. It is got admitted in his cross examination that he has not submitted his report after handing over the dead body for PM examination and he did not see what was inside the cover when he received it form the doctor.
202. It is elicited in his cross examination that he cannot say the time when he received the dead body at the spot. The distance between the spot and the KMS hospital may around 5 to 6 K.M.
203. The last witness is the then PSI of the JP Nagar police station who did the entire investigation of the case i.e. CW-16 Sri.K.R.Manjunath who is 84 S.C.No.170/2014 examined as PW-12 and he has deposed that on 22.08.2011 around 4:59 p.m. when he was in charge of SHO, CW-1 came to the station and gave computerized complaint at Ex.P-1 and his signature is at Ex.P-1(a).
204. He has also deposed that he registered the case in Cr.No.641/2011 and prepared the FIR at Ex.P- 8 and sent the same to jurisdictional Magistrate and the copies to his higher officers. His signature is at Ex.P-8(a).
205. It is also in his chief evidence that on the same day, CW-1 showed the spot to him wherein the dead body was laying and accordingly, in the presence of panchas i.e., CW-12 and CW-13, he conducted the inquest mahazar at Ex.P-5 in between 5:15 to 7:15 p.m. and his signature is Ex.P-5(a).
206. He has also deposed that at the time of Ex.P-5, he had recorded the statements of CWs-2 to 4 and sent the body for PM examination and after the 85 S.C.No.170/2014 PM examination, he handed over the dead body to Sri.Sruesh, who acknowledged the same as per Ex.P-9 and his signature is Ex.P-9(a).
207. It is also in his chief evidence that he recorded statement of CW-15 who had assisted him in getting subjected the dead body for PM examination. On 23.08.2011, he had recorded the further statements of CW-1 and CW-3 wherein they narrated the incident.
208. He has also deposed that on 25.08.2011, he had recorded the statements of witnesses i.e. CWs-5 to
11. CWs-7 and 8 gave statements before him as per Ex.P-6 and 7 respectively.
209. It is also in his chief evidence that on 02.09.2011, he received the PM report at Ex.P-2 and also the hanging material i.e. pink and brown color saree at MO.No.1. He mentioned the saree in PF No.198/2011 at Ex.P-10. He has identified his signatures at Ex.P-2(b) and P-10(a). 86 S.C.No.170/2014
210. He has also deposed that on 28.09.2011, A- 1 to 4 appeared before him after getting anticipatory bail and he completed the arrest procedures. He has identified A-1 to 4 in the open Court. There is no dispute with regard to the identification of the accused persons.
211. He has also deposed that on 28.04.2012, on completion of the investigation, as there were prima facie materials against A-1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, he prepared the charge sheet and submitted to the Court.
212. In his cross examination, it is elicited that the incident took place on 22.08.2011 at 12:45 p.m., and the distance between the spot and their station may around 1½ KMs. Before, he receives the complaint at Ex.P-1, he did not receive any information about the incident by other mode. He does not remember from what time, he was in the station on that day. 87 S.C.No.170/2014
213. It is also elicited that he obtained the presence of panchas at the spot itself. CWs-12 and 13 are not the local witnesses. There is no explanation about the circumstances with regard to the presence of CWs-12 and 13 in the spot when they are not the local aid.
214. It is also in his cross examination that when CW-1 came to lodge the compliant, he was in station and it took around 10 minutes to register the case and to prepare the FIR.
215. It is also elicited in his cross examination that he took 2 hours to conduct the inquest mahazar and to record the statement of witnesses. He handed over the dead body to his staffs around 7:15 p.m. He prepared the requisition for PM examination at the spot itself.
216. The omissions and the contradictions elicited in the cross examination of CW-16 are that; 88 S.C.No.170/2014
a) CW-3 Smt.Gowramma did not say before him that the deceased telling that she intends to ledge the complaint but, she consoled her/the deceased by saying that the things may be corrected in future and thus, not to lodge the police compliant.
b) In his statement, CW-5 did not say before him that around 4½ to 5 years back, all the accused came to Tokasandra and A-1 and 2 are only referred in the statement of CW-5. In her statement CW-6 did not specifically stated the words uttered by each accused persons in the phone calls.
c) The evidence of CW-9 in para No.2 at page No.2 (i.e., the evidence with regard to CW-9 making call to A-2 and the enquiry as well as reply of A-2 and Manjula leaving food and spending days by thinking about the defamatory statements of the accused persons) and para No.2 at page No.4 of her deposition (i.e., around 6 years back, all the accused persons came in a car and told about Manjala and it was 89 S.C.No.170/2014 afternoon; A-3 was the driver and she told CW-1 whatever stated by Manjula) is not forthcoming in her statement.
d) CWs-1 and 9 gave further statement before him as per Ex.D-1 and 2 respectively.
217. CW-16 has admitted the suggestion that the dates and timings of the alleged instigations are not specifically sated in the charge sheet.
218. He has denied the suggestion that to save his skin, with an apprehension that the case will come on him, the complainant has filed a false compliant against the accused persons by making false allegations even there is no incident took place as alleged by the complainant against the accused persons.
219. The other defence with regard to the loan raised by the complainant from A-2 and non repayment of the said loan; the difference between the complainant and the deceased with regard to the 90 S.C.No.170/2014 house dispute are all suggested to CW-16 for which he pleaded his ignorance by saying that he does not know.
220. He has denied the suggestion that he did not investigate the matter in the back ground of the above animosity and came to a wrong conclusion and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons mechanically.
221. It is in the written arguments filed by the counsel for accused persons the defence raised are that;
a) In the charge sheet, it is not clearly mentioned or explained in what manner the accused have committed the offence with the specific acts which leads to the commission of suicide by the deceased. As noted above, the same is admitted the IO/CW-16.
b) There is delay in lodging the complaint which is not properly explained, which is apparent on the face of record.
91 S.C.No.170/2014
c) The PC submitted the FIR is not examined and there is delay of 20 hours in submission of FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate even the court is near to the police station which is not properly explained, is also apparent on the face of record.
d) It is in the evidence of the IO that within 10 minutes he registered the case, prepared the FIR and came to the spot at 5:00 p.m.,; drawn the inquest mahazar; recorded the statements of some of the witnesses in between 5:15 to 7:15 p.m.,; sent the dead body for PM examination; the doctor received the same at the same time i.e. 7:15 p.m.,; conducted the PM examination at 7:35 p.m., which is highly improbable and not believable, which discloses the concoction of the case. The timings noted above are apparent on the face of record and thus, the probability of the defence that the actions taken within the time specified therein appears improbable cannot be thrown out rightly. 92 S.C.No.170/2014
e) The saree and the chair used for commission of suicide by the deceased were not been seized under inquest mahazar. The description of the saree, the distance or measurement between ceiling fan, chair and the cot are also not mentioned in detail in the inquest mahazar, which is apparent on the face of the inquest mahazar.
f) The IO did not conduct any mahazar for having searched the spot to find out the suicide note. It is also apparent on the face of record.
g) The IO and the police official did not depose about forwarding and handing over the saree to the doctor for opinion along with the dead body. But, the doctor has deposed that after PM examination along with PM report, he sent back the saree at MO.No.1 to the police which he had received at the time of receiving the dead body for PM examination.
h) Of course, it is apparent on record that the material object was not sent to the doctor with 93 S.C.No.170/2014 formalities. However, CW-15 has deposed that MO.No.1 was on the dead body while handing over the dead body to the doctor/CW-14.
i) The IO and the inquest pancha/CW-4 have deposed that the body was found laying on the ground. On the contrary, it is mentioned in the inquest mahazar that the body was tangled and brought down in the presence of IO as well as in the presence of panchas. CW-4 has also deposed that she signed the inquest mahazar in the hospital, but the inquest mahazar was as per police papers conducted at the spot.
j) These contradictions are already observed above while discussing the evidence of CWs-1, 2 and 4.
k) All the witnesses examined for the prosecution are the relative and interest witnesses and their statements are stereotype statements. No independent witnesses neither cited nor examined for the 94 S.C.No.170/2014 prosecution. This defence is supported by the prosecution papers on record.
l) Even the prosecution case is based exclusively on the alleged conversation between the witnesses and also between the witnesses and the accused persons, the police never secured the call details of any of the witnesses or of the accused persons. This defence is an admitted fact and evident on record.
m) CWs-7 and 8 who are the material witnesses according to the prosecution whose names found place in the compliant, turned hostile. It is also evident on record.
n) The motive for the offence is not established which varies from witness to witness including the complainant. In view of the contradictions observed above in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, this defence cannot be thrown out rightly.
222. Hence, from the above observations, in view of the fact that the material witnesses are the close 95 S.C.No.170/2014 relatives of the deceased and the complainant, the material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses observed above, CWs-7 and 8 turning hostile to the prosecution, non collection of the call details of the witnesses and the accused persons, the prosecution has failed to bring home the evidence involving the accused persons in commission of offence and thus, it has failed to prove the case against the accused persons for the offence alleged beyond all shadow of doubts. Accordingly, this point is answered in negative.
223. POINT No.2:- In view of my finding to above point and for reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER Acting Under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C accused Nos. 1 to 4 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable Under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
96 S.C.No.170/2014The bail bonds executed by accused Nos.1 to 4 shall be canceled after lapse of appeal period.
MO-1 being worthless, is ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal period. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 12th day of June, 2020).
(K. KATHYAYANI ), LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bengaluru.
-:ANNEXURE:-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION:-
PW.1 Narasimhaiah
PW.2 Prashanth
PW.3 T.S.Siddaraju.
PW.4 Gowramma
PW.5 Yashodamma
PW.6 Kousalya
PW.7 Dr.Jagannath.S.R.
PW.8 Sundar Rao
PW.9 Usharani
PW.10 Lakshmamma
PW.11 Jagadish
PW.12 K.R.Manjunath
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE :-
- None -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION :-
Ex.P-1 Complaint
Ex.P-1(a) Signature
97 S.C.No.170/2014
Ex.P-2 PM Report
Ex.P-2(a) Signature of PW-7
Ex.P-2(b) Signature of PW-12
Ex.P-3 Sample seal
Ex.P-3(a) Signature of PW-7
Ex.P-4 Report of PW-8
Ex.P-4(a) Signature of P.W-8
Ex.P-5 Inquest Mahazar
Ex.P-5(a) Signature of PW-9
Ex.P-5(b) Signature of PW12
Ex.P-6 Statement of PW-10
Ex.P-7 Statement of PW-11
Ex.P-8 FIR
Ex.P-8(a) Signature of PW-12
Ex.P-9 Acknowledgement for receiving the
dead body.
Ex.P-9(a) Signature
Ex.P-10 PF Form
Ex.P-10(a) Signature of PW-12
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR DEFENCE (through cross of CWs 1 and 9) :-
Ex.D-1 Further statement of CW-1
Ex.D-2 Further statement of CW-9
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION: MO-1: Saree LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:
- Nil -
(K. KATHYAYANI ), LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bengaluru.98 S.C.No.170/2014 The counsel for accused Nos.1 to 4
is present. He files application under Section 353(6) of Cr.P.C.
The Judgment is pronounced in the open Court (vide separate Order).
ORDER Acting Under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C accused Nos. 1 to 4 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable Under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
The bail bonds executed by accused Nos.1 to 4 shall be canceled after lapse of appeal period.
MO-1 being worthless, is ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.
LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bengaluru