Bangalore District Court
State By Malleshwaram Police Station vs Kumar S on 2 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2016
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. MADHUSUDHAN B.,
B.Com, LL.B (Spl.).,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.273/2015
COMPLAINANT:- State by Malleshwaram Police Station,
Bengaluru.
-Vs-
ACCUSED: : Kumar S.,
S/o. Shivanna,
Aged about 29 years,
R/at. No.23, Gangappa Garden,
Behind Prasanna Talkies,
Magadi Road, Bhuvaneshwarinagar,
Bengaluru City.
1. Date of commission of offence : 22.10.2013
2. Date of report of offence : 23.10.2013
3. Date of arrest of the Accused : On 23.10.2013
4. Name of the complainant : Smt. Padma
5. Date of recording evidence : 2.12.2015
6. Date of closing evidence : 13.6.2016
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec. 306 of IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused is Acquitted U/s. 235(1)
of Cr.P.C.
2 S.C.No.273/2015
9. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by : Sri. K.Srinivas, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Police Inspector of Malleshwaram police station, Bengaluru submitted charge sheet against accused, for trial of offence punishable U/s.306 of I.P.C., in Cr.No.259/2013.
2. Brief facts of prosecution case may be stated as under; Deceased- Annapoorna was serving as Sales Girl in Jelly India Private Limited (Jewelry Shop) at Manthri Mall situated at Malleshwaram Bengaluru city. In the said jewelry shop, accused was also serving as a Sales Executive. Thus, intimacy developed between accused and deceased, which later on turned to love affair. Though accused married with another woman, but accused by concealment of his marital status, promised to marry Annapoorna. Believing the words of accused, Annapoorna also used to leave in the company of accused. When Annapoorna insisted accused for performance of marriage, but accused went on postponing the matter for few days. But finally, he refused to marry her. Thus, Annapoorna was disappointed and on 22.10.2013 at about 2.00 p.m., took extreme step of consuming poison in dressing room of jewelry shop. Other colleagues of Annapoorna shifted her to Fortis Hospital, for treatment. Fortis hospital authority sent message to 3 S.C.No.273/2015 police concern and thereafter Annapoorna was shifted to Laxmi Multi Specialty Hospital. Message of this incident was sent to parents of Annapoorna, who rushed to hospital. But Annapoorna was not in a position to speak with her parents. She was admitted in I.C.U. Unit. On the same day at about 9.30 p.m., she died, while undergoing treatment at hospital. On 22.10.2013 itself, prior to death of Annapoorna, father of Annapoorna lodged F.I.R., in which neither name of accused nor anybody else disclosed cause of consuming poison and also the name of the accused. Therefore, police officials have registered unnatural death case in UDR.No.25/2013 on 23.10.2013 at about 10.30 a.m. But on the same day, i.e. on 23.10.2013 at about 4.30 p.m., mother of deceased - Annapoorna lodged report in which it is alleged that this accused is main cause for death of Annapoorna. Therefore, Malleshwaram police have registered a case against accused in Cr.No.259/2013 alleging commission of offence of abetment to suicide punishable U/s. 306 of I.P.C.
3. Police concerned started investigation. On 23.10.2013 itself this accused was apprehended by police and seized two mobile hand sets from his possession. Investigating Officer concerned has recorded statements of mother, father and another person, who is relative of deceased. Statements of other witnesses were also recorded. On 4 S.C.No.273/2015 23.10.2013 Post Mortem Examination was conducted at Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. Thereafter Investigating Officer concerned sent 4 bottles containing stomach and its contents and portion of small intestine and its contents, Portion of liver and Half kidney each, blood and Preservative used Sodium Chloride to F.S.L. Madiwala to get the opinion from Toxicology Department. Investigating Officer conducted spot and seizure mahazars and after obtaining F.S.L. Report, and P.M. Examination Report, submitted charge sheet against accused for trial of offence punishable U/s. 306 of I.P.C.
4. Accused obtain regular bail as per bail order passed in Crl.Mis.No.5751/2013 on the file of FTC-XIV, Bengaluru.
5. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and passed orders for registration of one criminal case in C.C.No.31583/2014 against accused for trial of offence punishable U/s. 306 of I.P.C. On 9.2.2015 Learned Magistrate passed orders for committal of case to the Court of Sessions, Bengaluru. After committal of this case, same is registered as S.C.No.273/2015. After hearing, on 22.09.2015 charge against accused was framed, which he denied, hence, claims to be tried.
6. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution in all cited as many as 22 witnesses, among them 12 witnesses were 5 S.C.No.273/2015 examined as Pw.1 to Pw.12. During trial prosecution got exhibited as many as 10 documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and got identified 2 material objects at Mo.1 and Mo.2.
7. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution side, accused was examined by this court as provided U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he has denied all incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. Defence of accused is one of total denial of prosecution case. However no any defence evidence led in by accused.
8. I have heard arguments. Accused executed fresh bail bond with one surety, as per provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
9. The following points have arisen for my consideration:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused committed offence punishable U/s. 306 of I.P.C.?
2. To what Order?
10. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
11. POINT NO.1:- Among the witnesses examined by prosecution, Pw.1 and Pw.2 are mother and father of deceased - 6 S.C.No.273/2015 Annapoorna, respectively. Pw.3 is Aunt of deceased. Pw.4 is doctor at F.S.L.Madiwala, who has given his opinion as per Ex.P.4. Pw.5 and Pw.6 are panch witnesses for spot mahazar marked at Ex.P.5. Pw.7 is panch witness for seizure of two mobiles. Pw.8 and Pw.12 are Investigating Officers. Pw.9 and Pw.11 are police officials, who according to case of the prosecution, arrested accused on 23.10.2014. Pw.10 is doctor, who conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of deceased.
12. I have gone through the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.3, who are close relatives of deceased- Annapoorna. As already stated father of complainant submitted report on 22.10.2013, in which he has clearly stated that, he does not know the cause for which deceased consumed poison. Therefore, on 23.10.2013 police concerned at first instance have registered case in UDR.No.25/2013, U/s. 174 of Cr.P.C. But on the same day, at about 4.30 p.m., mother of complainant/Pw.1 lodged F.I.R., in which name of this accused is disclosed as abettor for consuming poison. But during trial, neither Pw.1 nor Pw.2 whispered even a single sentence against accused. They have given complete go by to the story of the prosecution. Pw.1 though in her complaint has narrated the facts in detail and but during trial she has not stated the facts as contained in her complaint. Thus, she was declared as hostile witness and learned Public Prosecutor permitted to cross-examine her. 7 S.C.No.273/2015 But even during course of her cross-examination, she has categorically denied all material suggestions as suggested by learned Public Prosecutor. Even Pw.2 and Pw.3 have not disclosed name of this accused as abettor for committing suicide by deceased - Annapoorna. Both Pw.2 and Pw.3 were also declared as hostile witnesses. But even during course of cross-examination, nothing has been stated by these witnesses against accused. Therefore, versions of Pw.1 to Pw.3 are not suffice to connect this accused for the death of Annapoorna.
13. I have also gone through the versions of Pw.5 to Pw.7, who are panch witnesses for spot mahazar as well as seizure of two mobile hand sets. But they have also not supported the prosecution version. Therefore, even versions of Pw.5 to Pw.7 are not also useful for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. It is only the official witnesses, who have spoken against the accused. Mere arrest of accused by police concerned is not conclusive proof of guilt of the accused. During trial, prosecution tried to prove conversation of accused and deceased through their mobile phones. But it is unfortunate that, even on going through the cross-examination of Pw.12, it is clear that, there were no any recorded conversation between accused and deceased-Annapoorna through their mobile phones. P.M.Report and Toxicology Reports suggests that, she died because of consumption of Substance Containing or Gonophores 8 S.C.No.273/2015 Insecticide. To sustain charge U/s. 306 of I.P.C., there must be positive evidence to infer that, it is accused, who abetted Annapoorna to commit suicide. Abetment involves a mental process of insisting a person or intentional aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be recorded. Simply because, accused was also serving in the said jewelry shop is by itself, is not conclusive proof that, this accused has abetted deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, ingredient of penal provision of Section 306 of I.P.C., are not made out. Though Investigating Officers have stated about the facts of conducting investigation, but in the absence of direct evidence, against accused, case as put forth by the prosecution cannot be believed or accepted. Thus, I have not placed any reliance on the testimony of Investigating Officers.
14. In view of my above discussions, and in the result, I have come to the conclusion that, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused. Consequently, charge leveled against accused is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in negative.
15. POINT NO.2: In view of my findings on the above point No.1 accused is entitled for acquittal. Neither accused nor complainant claimed Mo.1 and Mo.2/ Two Nokia Mobile hand sets. Therefore, Mo.1 9 S.C.No.273/2015 and Mo.2 are to be confiscated to the Government, after expiry of appeal period. With these observations and being of that opinion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused is acquitted U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C of the offence punishable U/s.306 of I.P.C.
Bail bond and surety bonds executed by accused U/s. 437-A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
Mo.1 and 2/Nokia Mobile hand sets are ordered to be confiscated to the State, after expiry of appeal period.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C. (Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of July, 2016.) (MADHUSUDHAN B.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.10 S.C.No.273/2015
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 Padma
Pw.2 M.N.Shekar
Pw.3 Smt. Jayamma
Pw.4 Gundamma Patel
Pw.5 M. Sudhir
Pw.6 R. Rajesh Anil Kumar
Pw.7 Shivaswamy
channegowda
Pw.8 Srinivas
Pw.9 Nagaraj
Pw.10 Dr. Venkataragavan
Pw.11 Dada Peer
Pw.12 M.N.Nagaraj
II. For Defence:-
Nil
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 Statement of Pw.2
Ex.P.3 Statement of Pw.3
Ex.P.4 F.S.L.Report
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of Pw.4
Ex.P.5 Panchanama
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.5(b) Signature of Pw.6
Ex.P.5(c) Signature of Pw.8
Ex.P.6 Amanath Panchanama
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of Pw.7
Ex.P.6(b) Signature of Pw.6
Ex.P.7 F.I.R.
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of Pw.8
Ex.P.8 Inquest Mahazar
11 S.C.No.273/2015
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of Pw.8
Ex.P.9 Report from Fortis Hospital
Ex.P.10 P.M.Report
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of Pw.10
For Defence side:-
-Nil-
IV. List of material objects marked:-
Mo.1 Nokia Mobile
Mo.2 Nokia Mobile
(MADHUSUDHAN B.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY