Bangalore District Court
Central P.S vs A1 Smt. Veena on 27 June, 2024
KABC010209412016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY [CCH.63]
Dated: This the 27 th d ay of June, 2024
: Present :
Sri A. EARANNA, M.Com, LL.M.,
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
SESSIONS CASE No. 1110/2016
Complainant : State of Karnataka,
By Central Police Station,
Bengaluru.
[By : Public Prosecutor]
Vs.
Accused: 1. Veena
W/o Late Vasu
Aged about 29 years
R/at No.37, 1st Main road,
2nd Cross, M.V. Lane
Parvathipuram,
Bengaluru
2. Raghavendra @ Raghu
S/o Raju
Aged about 24 years
R/at 181, 7th Main, 7th Cross,
Gandhinagar, Kengeri Upanagar
Bengaluru
2 S.C.No.1110/2016
3. Ganesh G
S/o Late Kashi
Aged about 31 years
R/at No. 153, 7th Main
7th Cross, Gandhinagar,
Kengeri Upanagar
Bengaluru
A3 - Dead
4. Shekhar
S/o Late N.S. Raju
Aged about 32 years
R/at No.144, 7th Main
7th Cross, Gandhinagar,
Kengeri Upanagar
Bengaluru
5. Sanjay K
S/o Kumar
Aged about 27 years
R/at 173, 7th Main
7th Cross, Gandhinagar,
Kengeri Upanagar
Bengaluru
[Accused No.1 to 5 by Sri. BNS, Advocate]
Date of commission of offence 09.04.2013
Date of report of offence 05.05.2016
Date of arrest of the Accused Accused Nos.2 to 5 arrested on
5.5.2016
Accused No.1 arrested on
6.5.2016
Date of release of the accused Accused Nos.1 to 5 released on
on bail 9.8.2016.
Name of the complainant Sri. Divakara
3 S.C.No.1110/2016
Date of commencement of trial 22.01.2020
Date of closing of 25.03.2024
prosecution evidence
Date of Judgment 27.06.2024
Offences complained of U/s 120(B), 302 r/w 149 of
I.P.C.
Opinion of the Judge Accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are
acquitted
JU DG M E NT
The I.O of Central Police submitted a charge sheet
against the accused Nos.1 to 5 of the offences punishable
U/s 120(B), 302 r/w 149 of IPC before the learned XXIV
Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru, who committed the case for
disposal in accordance with law.
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is as
under;
On 10.04.2013 one Srinivas who is the elder brother
of deceased- Vasu informed in writing about death of his
brother Vasu to the respondent police by alleging that he
suspects the involvement of 2 nd wife of the deceased i.e., accused No.1 in respect of cause of death of Vasu. On 4 S.C.No.1110/2016 receipt of the complaint, the respondent police registered the case in UDR No.11/2013 under Section 174 Cr.P.C and they sent the body of the deceased Vasu to the hospital for Post mortem examination and on report of the Doctor that death was caused due to heart attack the UDR case No.11/2013 was closed. That on 05.05.2016 one Suresh / Head Constable and other police Constables i.e., PC No.11959, 11963, 9157 and 9177 who were entrusted to trace the accused Nos.2 to 5 and stolen articles of theft case, registered at the respondent police went out to search the accused Nos.2 to 5 on the basis of credible information received by them and at about 3.30 p.m, on 5.5.2016 when they reached near Parvathipura extension, the said police constables noticed 4 persons quarreling between themselves by murmuring some words. On seeing the Police Constables, the said four persons tried to ran away from the spot. The police apprehended them by chasing and on interrogation the accused Nos.1 to 5 have confessed that they have committed the murder of one Vasu resident of Parvathipura for gain at the behest of his 2 nd wife- Veena/accused No.1. Later accused Nos.1 to 5 brought to 5 S.C.No.1110/2016 the police station and on further interrogation, they confessed that during year 2013 accused No.1 agreed to give them supari of Rs.5 lakhs to kill her husband / Vasu. Accordingly they have murdered said Vasu by forcibly smothering his nose and mouth by pressing cotton pillow on him. Later accused No.1 also came to the police station voluntarily and confessed the crime and police summoned one Diwakar, the son of deceased, he identified the accused No.2 and filed written complaint against the accused Nos.1 to 5. On the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, the Central police have registered a case and after completion of investigation, the I.O. of Central Police Station have submitted a charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the above said offences.
3. The accused Nos.1 to 5 faced the trial through their counsels and thereafter, charge for the offences punishable U/s 120(B), 302 r/w 149 of I.P.C. has been framed against the accused Nos.1 to 5, wherein they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. The respondent 6 S.C.No.1110/2016 police have submitted that Accused No.3 was died on 2.8.2023, hence case against accused No.3 was abated.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 18 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P24 and M.O.1, closed its side. Thereupon, the accused Nos.1 to 5 have been examined U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. by stating the incriminating evidence appearing against them, wherein they have denied the same and they did not choose to lead any evidence on their behalf and thereby, the defence evidence is taken as nil.
5. Heard arguments. Perused the records.
6. The points for my consideration are;
1. ¢B 05.05.2016 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 3.30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è 2 jAzÀ 5 £Éà DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀÄ oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À J¯ï.©.J¥sï gÀ¸ÉÛ ¥ÁªÀðw¥ÀÅgÀ E°è 2 jAzÀ 5 £Éà DgÉÆævÀgÁzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ M§âjUÉƧâgÀÄ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ 1 £Éà DgÉÆævÀ¼ÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¢B 09.04.2013 gÀ ªÁ¸ÀÄgÀªÀgÀ PÉÆ¯É ¸ÀAa£À ªÉÄÁvÀÛzÀ ºÀtzÀ ¹éÃPÁgÀPÁÌV §A¢zÀÄÝ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¸ÉAlæ¯ï ¥ÉÆðøïoÁuÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀgÀºÀzÀÄÝ £ÀAB 10, 1 £Éà ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ, 2 £Éà PÁæ¸ï, ªÀiÁUÀr ªÉAPÀl¥Àà ¯ÉÊ£ï, ¥ÁªÀðw¥ÀÅgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, E°è ªÁ¸À«zÀÝ ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÁ¸ÀÄgÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß 1 £Éà DgÉÆæ-«ÃuÁ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ 7 S.C.No.1110/2016 DVzÀÝgÀÆ, 2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÉÆA¢UÉ CPÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzÀs ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ, vÀ£Àß UÀAqÀ¤AzÀ vÀ£ÀUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÁVAiÀÄÆ w½¹ DvÀ£À£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ 5 ®PÀë gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß (LzÀÄ ®PÀë) PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ¢B 09.04.2013 gÀAzÀÄ 2 jAzÀ 5 £Éà DgÉÆævÀjUÉ w½¹ C¥ÀgÁ¢üPÀ M¼À¸ÀAZÀÄ £ÀqɹzÀÄÝ 1 jAzÀ 5 £Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¨s Á gÀ w ÃAiÀ Ä zÀ A qÀ ¸À A »vÉ PÀ ® A 120(©) ¸À º À ª ÁZÀ P À PÀ ® A 149 gÀr ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß ಮಮಡರರವರರರದರ ಸರಮರರ ಅಭಯಯಜನರಯರ ಸಮಬಯತರಪಡಸರತತದರಯಯ?
2. JgÀqÀ£ÉÃAiÀÄzÁV ¢B 09.04.2013 gÀAzÀÄ 1 jAzÀ 5 £Éà DgÉÆævÀgÁzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ £ÀqɹzÀ C¥ÀgÁ¢üPÀ M¼À¸ÀAa£À KPÉÆÃzÉÝñÀªÀ£ÀÄß FqÉÃj¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¢B 09.04.2013 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è 1 £Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÁ¸ÀÄgÀªÀjUÉ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁr¸ÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ ºÉÆA¢ gÁwæ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è MAzÀÄ ¤zÉæ ªÀiÁvÉæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß HlzÀ°è ºÁQzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÁ¸ÀÄgÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ gÀƪÀiï£À°è ªÀÄ®VgÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è gÁwæ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 11.30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è 2 jAzÀ 5 £Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀÄgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ, ªÁ¸ÀÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ gÀƪÀiï£À ªÀÄAZÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄ®VzÁÝUÀ, 2 £Éà DgÉÆæ ªÁ¸ÀÄ«£À PÁ®ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©VAiÀiÁV »rzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, 4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5 £Éà DgÉÆæಗಳರ ªÁ¸ÀÄgÀªÀgÀ PÉÊUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©VAiÀiÁV »rzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÝÄ, CzÉà ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è 3 £Éà DgÉÆæ ¸ÀàAeï ªÀiÁzÀjAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ vÀ¯É ¢A§£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀÄgÀªÀgÀ 8 S.C.No.1110/2016 ¨Á¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆV£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ©VAiÀiÁV MwÛ »rzÀÄ G¹gÀÄUÀnÖ¹ F C¥ÀgÁ¢ü PÀÈvÀå¢AzÀ ªÀÄgÀt ¸ÀA¨Às«¹zÀgÉ PÉƯÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ vÀ¦àvÀ¸ÀÜ£ÁUÀÄwÛgÉA§ Cj«zÀÝgÀÆ 1 jAzÀ 5 £Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¨s Á gÀ w ÃAiÀ Ä zÀ A qÀ ¸À A »vÉ PÀ ® A 302 ¸À º À ª ÁZÀ P À PÀ ® A 149 gÀr ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß ಮಮಡರರವರರರದರ ಸರಮರರ ಅಭಯಯಜನರಯರ ಸಮಬಯತರಪಡಸರತತದರಯಯ?
3. What Order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 and 2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : As per final order, for the
following:
R E A SON S
8. Points No. 1 and 2 :- CW27 dead. Learned Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of CW14, 15, 21, 22 and
23. Proclamation issued against CW2, CW6, CW13 is proclaimed, CW2, CW6 and CW13 remained absent, hence evidence of CW2, CW6 and CW13 dropped.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that in all examined PW1 to PW18. All the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Further argued that on 9.04.2013 9 S.C.No.1110/2016 accused No.1 after giving the sleeping tablet to Vasu. Accused No.2 to 5 have caught hold the hands and legs of Vasu, accused No.1 has suffocated the Vasu with pillow, due to it Vasu was died. Then they have created Vasu was died naturally and he was buried. Then on 05.05.2016 PW13 and PW14 were petrolling within the limits of their station. Then they came to know at about 3.30 pm., then they came near F.B.S. road, on Bharathipura main road four persons were standing and quarreling with each other. After seeing them they try to flew away from the said place. Then they caught hold the accused Nos.2 to 5. Then on enquiry they narrated that accused No.1 agreed to give an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- supari to kill her husband. She had paid only Rs.2,50,000/-, remaining amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was not paid. They were standing in the said place as accused No.1 was coming to said place. Then son of Vasu lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. Then the police have conducted the investigation. All the witnesses have deposed that accused No.1 is the wife of Vasu and there is no corrodible relationship between the Vasu and accused No.1, quarreling with each. Accused No.1 was having illegal 10 S.C.No.1110/2016 relationship with accused No.2. Then accused No.1 along with accused Nos.1 to 5 killed Vasu. Then the investigating officer conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 5. Therefore, the prosecution prays to convict the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 for the offence punishable under Section 120(B), 302 r/w 149 of IPC.
10. Counsel for the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 argued that accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 have not all committed any offence. There is no eyewitness to come to conclusion that the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 have killed Vasu. Vasu was died naturally, he was not killed by anyone. PW12 doctor who conducted the post mortem of deceased Vasu has given Vasu was died naturally, his death was not due to strangulation nor he was killed by anyone. Due to property dispute of PW1 and sons of accused No.1, they have created the false story and lodged the complaint. Vasu was died on 9.04.2013. PW1 lodged the complaint on 05.05.2016. after lapse of three years complaint was lodged. Even after death of Vasu was taken to hospital and lodged the complaint. But police have registered the case 11 S.C.No.1110/2016 under UDR 11/2013 under section 174C of Cr.P.C. After receiving the complaint police came to know death was natural but not for any act of the accused Nos.1 to 5. Even except the official witnesses none of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Therefore, they prays to acquit the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 for the alleged offences.
11. PW1 Divakar deposed accused No.1 is his maternal aunt. Deceased Vasu is his father. Accused No.1 is the 2nd wife of Vasu. Vasu was died on 10.04.2013. Accused No.1 and deceased Vasu were resided at Parvatipur, Bengaluru in door No.9, in the ground floor. After demise of his mother Vasu was got married the accused No.1. During the life time of Vasu, Vasu and accused No.1 were residing cordially. He further deposed there was quarrel taken between Vasu and accused No.1 for financial matter. Before three months of death of Vasu accused No.1 was left the house. Before 20 days of death of Vasu she returned to the house. Then she appolised the deceased Vasu stating that she will take care of his sons. Then they resided in the house.
12 S.C.No.1110/2016
12. On 10.04.2013 while he was in his room, accused No.1 came and informed that Vasu was not breathing and asked call the Srinivas. Then said Srinivas came to the house. Vasu was sleeping on the bed, but frothing was in the mouth. He and Srinivas taken Vasu to the KIMS hospital. Doctors after examining the Vasu informed that Vasu died 4-5 hours back. Thereafter Srinivas has suspecting on accused No.1 lodged the complaint. After conducting the post mortem Vasu dead body was handed over. Police have not taken any action against the accused No.1 as the on complaint lodged by Srinivas. He further deposed on 05.05.2016 Central police have gave phone call and he rushed to the said station. Police have informed that accused persons have killed his father Vasu. When he went to the station accused Nos.1 to 5 have told that the accused persons have put the pillow on face of the Vasu and pressed the said pillow. Due to it Vasu was died. He further deposed accused No.1 has told the accused Nos.2 to 5, if they kill Vasu she would pay amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Then he lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. 13 S.C.No.1110/2016
13. He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused persons. He denied he has not lodged the complaint against the accused persons. He denied due to property dispute himself and sons of accused No.1 he filed the false complaint. On perusal of the evidence of PW1 he has not stated in his evidence whenever Vasu and accused No.1 were quarreled case has been registered or not. PW1 deposed after information given by the accused No.1 he and Srinivas came to the said place and Vasu was taken to the KIMS hospital. After examining the Vasu doctors have told he died 4-5 hours back. PW1 deposed Vasu was not found any injuries. He is not eye witness to the incident. On the other hand he deposed accused No.1 and Vasu were resided cordially, even though he deposed they were quarreling with each other. From the evidence of PW1 prosecution has not proved that there was no cordially relationship between the Vasu and accused No.1. Due to it accused persons have killed Vasu. PW1 deposed about 3 months prior to the incident, accused No.1 left the house and went away, in this regard deceased Vasu nor PW1 have not lodged the complaint. After 3 months she returned to 14 S.C.No.1110/2016 the house then she seeks apology. But in this regard there is no documentary evidence to come to conclusion accused No.1 has left the house prior to 3 months of incident. Even he denied there was no cordially relationship with accused No.1. He has stated that accused No.1 and 2 are having illegal relationship. In this regard there is no evidence nor documents to come to conclusion that accused No.1 and Vasu were not having cordially relationship. He deposed share in the property of Vasu were given to sons of accused No.1. He deposed accused No.1 had sold the property. They were getting Rs.25,000/- per month from the house of Parvatipura. As per evidence of PW1 police have told that the accused persons have committed the offence. Then he came to know the same.
14. PW2 Anil deposed on 6.5.2016 police have conducted the mahazar in the house of deceased Vasu. At that time accused No.1 to 5 were there. Then police have conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P3. He deposed in the cross examination PW1 is his relative ಪಮಪಸಮ-1 ರವರಗರ ಸಹಮಯವಮಗಲರರದರ ನಮನಯಮಲಯರರಕ ಬರದರ ಸಮಕಕಕ ನರಡಯರತತದರದಯನರ ಎರದರರ ಸರ. The evidence of PW2 is clear that he is relative of PW1. On 15 S.C.No.1110/2016 going through the evidence of PW2, accused No.1 was resided in the said house along with Vasu. As per his evidence on 6.5.2016 mahazar was conducted. On the other hand Vasu was died on 9.04.2013. After lapse of 3 years the mahazar was conducted. He deposed he do not know the names of persons who wrote the Ex.P3.
15. PW3 Santosh is the relative of Vasu. He deposed accused No.1 is the 2nd wife of Vasu. Due to marital life Vasu and accused No.1, they have got two children. So also PW1 resided at Parvatipura. He deposed frequently Vasu was quarreling with accused No.1 regarding financial matter. Complaint was lodged against accused No.1 in the Central police station. As per the mutual understanding accused No.1 agreed to return the amount in a small small quantum. But accused No.1 has not repaid the amount. Due to it quarrel was taken in between the Vasu and accused No.1. He further deposed on 9.04.2013 accused No.1 came to his house and told Vasu was sleeping and he had not wake up. Then he and his father went to house of Vasu. Dead body of Vasu turned to blue colour, frothing at the mouth. Then he was taken to KIMS hospital where 16 S.C.No.1110/2016 doctor told about 5 hours back Vasu was dead. His father lodged the complaint. He deposed police told accused persons are causes for death of Vasu. He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused. He deposed Vasu had lodged the complaint against the accused No.1. He deposed he do not know on which date Vasu had lodged the complaint. He further deposed there were no marks on the dead body of Vasu. On going through the entire evidence of PW3, he is not eye witness to the incident. Accused No.1 came to his house and told Vasu was not wake up, then he and his father rushed to the place. On the other hand PW1 nor PW4 have not stated in their evidence that the accused No.1 agreed to repay small small quantum of amount. Even they have not stated Vasu was lodged the complaint against the accused No.1. He deposed dead body of Vasu was turned to blue colour. On the other hand none of the witness deposed body of Vasu turned to blue colour. Admittedly he is not eye witness to the incident.
16. PW4 Vijayalakshmi deposed deceased Vasu was brother of her husband. Accused No.1 is the wife of Vasu. 17 S.C.No.1110/2016 Before death of Vasu he and accused No.1 along with her two children were resided in Parvatipur cordially. She further deposed often and offeten they were quarreled with each other. She deposed they resided 1 st two years along with Vasu and accused No.1. In the year 2012 they have resided separately and they are residing at Kengeri. She further deposed she do not know in the year 2012 what had happened between the accused No.1 and Vasu. She further deposed from 2012 to 2013 they were not visited to the house of Vasu. On one day of the year 2013, PW1 had gave phone call, Vasu was died. She deposed she went to KIMS hospital where she had seen the dead body of Vasu. She deposed she do not know what had happened to Vasu. She do not know how Vasu was died. She deposed Central police have told Vasu was killed by accused No.1. She deposed she had not given statement before police. She has not supported the prosecution case. Then prosecution cross examined this witness. She deposed in the cross examination in the year 2013, accused No.1 came to her house as she had quarreled with Vasu and resided for one night. Next day Vasu came and took her to his house. Vasu 18 S.C.No.1110/2016 told if accused No.1 came again to your house she will not allowed to stay in her house. She denied when she was resided in her house she called one Raghavendra. She denied she has seen the accused Nos.2 to 4 in the police station. She denied she has given statement as per Ex.P5. She was cross examined by the counsel for the accused. She cannot say which police have informed about the death of Vasu and accused persons have committed the offence. PW4 is the relative of deceased. She has not supported the prosecution case. Even though she has stated accused No.1 for one day in her house, she has not stated in her evidence accused No.1 gave sleeping tablet. He was taken sleeping tablet, then accused Nos.2 to 5 were killed the Vasu. Admittedly she is not eye witness to the incident. Therefore from the evidence of PW4 prosecution has failed to prove its case.
17. PW5 Rajamma deposed she was tenet in the house of Vasu. In the year 2013 she was resided behind Maramma temple. She deposed she do not know how Vasu was died. She deposed Vasu and accused No.1 Veena were living cordialy. She deposed she do not know how and for 19 S.C.No.1110/2016 what reason Vasu was died. PW5 is the independent witness, she has not supported the prosecution case. She was cross examined by the prosecution. She deposed she not seen in the year 2013 on one day morning accused No.1 and his brother came and told Vasu is not talking. Then they have taken Vasu to the hospital. She further deposed she has not gave statement Vasu and accused No.1 frequently quarreling with each other. She denied police have told accused Nos.1 to 5 have killed Vasu. She denied she seen the accused Nos.1 to 5 and gave statement as per Ex.P6. PW5 is the independent witness. In the examination in chief nor in the cross examination she has not stated accused No.1 and Vasu were quarreling often and often and she has not stated police have informed that accused Nos.1 to 5 have killed the Vasu. Therefore from the evidence of PW5 prosecution has failed to prove its case.
18. PW6 Bhaskar deposed he was resided opposite of deceased Vasu's house. He deposed he know the accused No.1. accused No.1 and deceased were resided cordial. About 6-7 years back came to know that Vasu was died due to heart attack. He further deposed he has not seen 20 S.C.No.1110/2016 the accused Nos.2 to 4. He has not supported the prosecution case. PW6 is the independent witness, he has not supported the prosecution case. He was cross examined by the prosecution. He deposed on 7.5.2016 he went to Central police station. He denied he has seen the accused Nos.1 to 5 in the station. He denied he has not gave statement Vasu and accused No.1 frequently quarreling with each other. He denied police have told accused Nos.1 to 5 have killed Vasu. He denied there is no cordial relationship with accused No.1 and Vasu and he gave statement as per Ex.P7. PW6 is the independent witness. In the examination in chief nor in the cross examination he has not stated accused No.1 and Vasu were quarreling often and often and he has not stated police have informed that accused Nos.1 to 5 have killed the Vasu. Therefore from the evidence of PW6 prosecution has failed to prove its case.
19. PW7 Lakapati, PW8 Shanmugam are the pillow seizer witnesses. That they deposed they have not went to central police station. They deposed they have not seen the accused Nos.1 to 5 before this. They deposed police have 21 S.C.No.1110/2016 obtained the signature on one document i.e., on Ex.P8. They deposed in their presence police have not seized any pillow. Both have not supported the prosecution case. Thereafter prosecution cross examined these two witnesses. They denied on 7.5.2016 they went to central police station where they have seen accused Nos.1 to 5 and accused Nos.1 to 5 have told that in the month of April- 2013 they have given sleeping tablet to Vasu. Thereafter they have suffocated the Vasu with pillow and they killed Vasu. They denied in their presence police have conducted the Ex.P8 and seized the pillow. They denied they have given the statement as per Ex.P9 and Ex.P10. Therefore from the evidence of these two witnesses prosecution failed to prove Ex.P8 and also seizer of pillow. Therefore from the evidence of PW7 and PW8 prosecution has failed to prove its case.
20. PW9 Sampangi is the relative of deceased Vasu. He deposed accused No.1 is the wife of deceased Vasu. In the year 2013 on one day received phone call at 9.00 am., from Srinivas who is the brother of deceased Vasu stating that Vasu was died. After receiving the phone message he 22 S.C.No.1110/2016 rushed to the KIMS hospital where he has seen the dead body of Vasu. He further deposed Srinivas told Vasu was died due to heart attack. He further deposed Vasu was leading marital life with accused No.1. He has not supported the prosecution case. Prosecution cross examined this witness. In the cross examination he has supported the prosecution case. He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused. In the evidence he has stated when he has seen the dead body already inquest was conducted. He cannot say on which date he has given the statement before the police regarding marital life of the accused No.1 and deceased. He further deposed he has not stated anything about marital life of accused No.1 and deceased. He deposed he does not know the fact directly. Therefore from the evidence of PW9 prosecution has failed to prove that accused Nos.1 to 5 are causes for death of Vasu.
21. PW10 Gopinath he deposed he do not know deceased Vasu. He deposed he came to know Vasu was died in the year 2013. His dead body was seen nearby the house. Apart from it not seen the dead body anywhere else. 23 S.C.No.1110/2016 He deposed police have issued the notice as per Ex.P11. He has not stated in his presence police have conducted the inquest as per Ex.P12. PW10 is the inquest mahazar witness. He has not supported the prosecution case. Prosecution cross examined this witness. He denied in his presence conducted the inquest mahazar as per Ex.P12. He denied when he saw the dead body in the hospital from the mouth of dead body ನರನರರ was coming. Therefore in the examination in chief nor in the cross examination this witness has not supported the prosecution case. From the evidence of PW10 prosecution has failed to prove Ex.P12 and prosecution has failed to prove its case.
22. PW11 Srikanth deposed he know deceased Vasu. About 7-8 years back he was died. His dead body was seen in the KIMS hospital. There is no mark on the dead body. Police have obtained the signature on two documents. He deposed he do not know the contents of Ex.P11 and Ex.P12. He has not supported the prosecution case. Prosecution cross examined this witness. He deposed on 10.04.2013 he went to KIMS hospital, further he denied in his presence conducted the inquest mahazar as per 24 S.C.No.1110/2016 Ex.P12. He denied when he saw the dead body in the hospital from the mouth of dead body frothing from mouth was coming. Therefore in the examination in chief nor in the cross examination this witness has not supported the prosecution case. From the evidence of PW11 prosecution has failed to prove Ex.P12 and prosecution has failed to prove its case.
23. PW12 Dr. S.R. Jaganathan who conducted the post mortem of deceased V.Vasu. As per his evidence on 10.04.2013 received the requisition from P.I. of central police to conduct the post mortem of Vasu. On the same day at 12.05 to 1.05 pm., conducted the post mortem. On examination there is hundred ml of liquid in the stomach. On examination Heart, lungs, liver, Pancreas, Kidneys, Spleen and Brain were sent for Histopathology report. He further deposed on 21.06.2013 received the requisition from PSI of central police station along with FSL report and histopathology report, requested him to cause of death. As per the report death is due to blockage in the heart and in this regard issued the report as per Ex.P13. As per his opinion deceased had natural death. Again on 06.06.2016 25 S.C.No.1110/2016 P.I. sought requisition stating that if a person aged about 43 years after taking the sleeping tablets and three persons were holding the hands and legs, one person put the pillow on the mouth and nose. Due to suffocation, heart attack may cause or not. After requisition he has given the report stating that death is not due to suffocation by putting the pillow on the face and issued report as per Ex.P14. Again on 28.07.2016 that the wife of deceased gave sleeping tablets in the meals. Then Vasu was sleeping on the bed. Four persons were holding the hands and legs, one person by putting the pillow and press the pillow, then is there any chances for death of Vasu. Again on verifying the histopathology report and FSL report he has given report as per Ex.P15 that there is no chance of death is due to suffocation. As per his opinion there is no poison contained in the stomach nor contains contents of sleeping tablets. He has categorically stated death is natural death but not for any other reason. PW12 who is the material witnesses who is the person conducted the post mortem and gave the report. As per his evidence and documents death is caused due to Cardiac Failure. Except this he was not gave the 26 S.C.No.1110/2016 report if a person by putting the pillow on face and press the pillow, due to suffocation he died. On careful perusal of the entire evidence of PW12 Vasu's death is natural death but not for any other reason. As per the prosecution case on 10.04.2013 that Vasu was died. On the same day received the requisition and conducted the post mortem. On verifying the reports and also FSL report he has given opinion his death is natural death. As per the prosecution story is that accused No.1 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- supari to kill Vasu and gave Rs.2,50,000/-, then the accused Nos.1 to 5 have killed Vasu by making suffocation. But in this case the evidence of PW12 is clear that his death was natural death but not for any other reason. I.O. has requested the PW12 to give the report but not for once, he has sought for 2-3 times. Inspite of it PW12 gave report as per Ex.P13 to 15. There is no reason to discard or disbelieve the evidence to PW12. Therefore from the evidence of PW12 prosecution has failed to prove accused Nos.1 to 5 have killed Vasu.
24. PW13 D.Suresh ASI of Central police and PW14 Shivarjirao. Both have deposed they were discharging as 27 S.C.No.1110/2016 head constable and constable in the central police station. On 5.5.2016 CW27 has deputed them and CW20 to CW23 to trace out the M.O.Bs. As per the instructions they went to Chamarajpet, VV Puram, R.V.road, Sajjanrao circle. At about 2.30 pm., they came Maruthipuram main road, four persons were standing and quarreling with each other. On seeing them they try to flew away from the said place. Then they have caught hold. On enquiry they told if they killed husband of accused No.1, then accused No.1 offered to pay Rs.5,00,000/-. Then they went to the house of accused No.1, husband of the accused No.1 was killed by putting the pillow on face and pressed and he died. Then she paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- but she has not paid remaining Rs.2,50,000/- and they were waiting for the accused No.1 who was coming to the said place. They have caught and produced before the CW27 and PW13 gave report as per Ex.P16. PW13 and PW14 have stated in their evidence accused Nos.2 to 5 waiting for accused No.1 as she had not paid remaining Rs.2,50,000/-. PW13 and PW14 have not at all stated that CW27 have gave written direction to trace out the M.O.Bs. They deposed they went 28 S.C.No.1110/2016 to the said place in their motorcycle. They have not at all stated who caught hold which accused, has not at all stated in their evidence. Even they deposed they have not conducted the mahazar where accused persons were caught hold. They deposed in one auto two accused persons and one constable and in another two accused persons and one police constable have taken to the police station and produced before the CW27. PW13 and PW14 have not at all stated auto numbers and not at all stated that the said auto was taken on rental basis. Even they have not at all stated which accused was taken in which auto, whether they have paid rent to the said auto. In the Ex.P16 they have not yet all mentioned the auto numbers, name of the auto drivers. Even in the Ex.P16 that they have not at all stated they are also accompanied with the accused persons in the auto. In the Ex.P16 they have not stated whether CW19, 20, 22 and 23 were accompanied. PW13 and 14 have not at all stated in their evidence their motorcycle numbers. So also Ex.P16 does not reveals said persons went in their motorcycle numbers. Therefore the 29 S.C.No.1110/2016 evidence of PW13 and PW14 is not helpful to the prosecution case.
25. PW15 Nagaraj H.P. who is the retired executive engineer, he deposed on 10.05.2016 received the requisition from Central police station to prepare map of place of incident. As per his evidence he along with one Kalasaiah, attender went to the said place, prepared the map as per Ex.P17. He deposed in the cross examination he has not put his designation in the Ex.P17. His higher officer not gave written direction to go to the spot and prepare the map. After lapse of 5 years of the incident, he went to the said place and prepared the Ex.P17. He deposed on the request of police he had issued the Ex.P17. He further deposed there is chances of changes in the place due to BBMP PWD work and also they installing the electric poles. As per the evidence of PW15 he has issued the Ex.P17. Admittedly after 5 years of the incident he went to the place of incident and prepared the Ex.P17 and issued to the police.
26. PW16 Vishwas A.S., who is the investigating officer in this case. As per his evidence on 5.5.2016 CW19 30 S.C.No.1110/2016 produced the accused Nos.1 to 4 and gave the report. Said persons were standing infront of entrance of Parvathipur and quarreling with each other. As per the enquiry of CW19, in the year 2013 accused No.1 offered if her husband was killed she will pay Rs.5,00,000/-. Then the above said four persons along with accused No.1 have killed Vasu by suffocating using the pillow. Then they have produced and gave the report. The said persons are Raghavendra, Ganesh, Shekhar and Sanjay. They told they have killed for money as agreed by them. He further deposed accused No.1 told she was not having cordial relationship with deceased and she was having ill-legal relationship with accused No.2. The accused persons have told on 9.4.2013 that they have killed Vasu by using pillow. Then the accused No.1 gave an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to accused Nos.2 to 4 and agreed to pay remaining Rs.2,50,000/-. He further deposed CW1 has called to the station. He called Srinivas stating that his father was not speaking and there was frothing at the mouth. CW1 lodged the complaint. Based on the complaint registered the case in crime No.70/2016 for the offence punishable U/s 120(B) 31 S.C.No.1110/2016 and 302 r/w 149of I.P.C. He further deposed he was recorded the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 to 5 and statement of CW20 to CW23. Received FSL report and histopathology report. He further deposed on 6.5.2016 conducted the spot mahazar in presence of CW2 and CW3. He further deposed on 7.5.2016 seized one pillow in presence of CW9 and CW10 and received map of place of incident and recorded the statement of PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW8. After concluding the investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused persons.
27. On perusal of the evidence of PW16, he denied in the cross examination he has not conducted the mahazar in presence of witnesses, not seized the pillow. He denied he has not recorded the statement of witnesses. He denied he has filed false charge sheet against the accused persons.
28. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW16 he has stated in his evidence that P.I. Sudarshan of Central police station after conducting the investigation registered the case in UDR No.11/2013. He further deposed after getting Talshidar report and medical report then he has registered in UDR. On careful perusal of the evidence one Srinivas 32 S.C.No.1110/2016 has lodged the complaint on 10.04.2013. Then the I.O. after receiving the complaint from said Srinivas as per Ex.P4, after getting report from medical officer and case was registered in UDR.
29. As per the prosecution case on 9.4.2013 that the accused No.1 gave sleeping tablets in meals, at about 2.30am. that the accused Nos.1 to 5 killed Vasu by putting pillow on face and by pressing it. Due to suffocation Vasu was died. Thereafter Srinivas suspecting on accused No.1 lodged the complaint. As per the prosecution case on 9.7.2013 that the accused No.1 informed to the PW1 and said Srinivas stating that Vasu was frothing at the mouth and he was not breathing, then they came to the said house. Vasu was taken to KIMS hospital. Doctors of KIMS hospital have told he was died about 4-5 hours back. Based on the complaint lodged by Srinivas the then P.I. of central police station have registered the case, if he was killed by suffocation then the doctor may gave report that his death was not natural one and he was killed. Then I.O. may registered the case U/s 302 of I.P.C. But case was registered under UDR 11/2013.
33 S.C.No.1110/2016
30. He deposed in the evidence one Srinivas lodged the complaint, based on the complaint P.I. Sudarshan after getting the PM report and report from executive Magistrate he has registered the case in UDR. As per UDR Vasu was died due to Cardiac failure. He further deposed after three years of registering the UDR he has investigated the case. The evidence of PW16 clearly reveals that Sudarshan P.I. after getting the PM report, he has registered under UDR. On going through the records that there is no reason to come to conclusion he was intentionally registered under UDR. It is the duty of P.I. Sudarshan conduct the investigation proper and cautiously when the offence was serious in nature. After receiving the complaint from Srinivas he has conducted the investigation. As per the evidence of PW16 that PW13 and PW14 have brought the accused persons and produced before him. Then they called the PW1, PW3 and PW4 to the station. As per these witnesses police have told the accused persons have killed Vasu, then they came to know Vasu was killed by the accused persons. On going through the evidence of those witnesses, they have not at all stated in their evidence they 34 S.C.No.1110/2016 came to know the accused persons have committed murder of Vasu. On the other hand they deposed as per the say of police the came to know Vasu was killed by the accused persons. Even though PW5, PW6, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10, PW11 are the independent witnesses that they have not at all supported the prosecution case. They denied in their presence conducted the mahazar, seizer mahazar and also person who were tenent in the house of Vasu and persons who were residing opposite house of Vasu, they are the material witnesses, they have not at all supported the prosecution case. If the alleged incident was taken place, then accused persons have killed the Vasu then these witnesses may have deposed stating that there was no cordial relationship between Vasu and accused No.1, accused No.1 was having illegal relationship with accused No.2, due to it accused No.1 gave supari to kill Vasu. But in this regard the evidence of those persons are contrary to the evidence of PW16. Further the evidence of PW12 who conducted the post mortem clearly deposed and gave the report Vasu was died due to Cardiac failure but not he was killed. Therefore there is no corroboration in evidence of 35 S.C.No.1110/2016 PW16 and the above said witnesses. PW16 conducted the investigation but in support of his evidence there is no evidence of above said witnesses. Even though PW16 has not gave what was the reason for re-investigate the case. Even he has not deposed P.I. Sudarshan had not properly conducted the investigation. He admitted as per police manual there is no provision to re-investigate the case. Therefore the evidence of PW16 and above said witnesses are not corroborate with each other. Therefore from the evidence of PW16 court cannot come to conclusion the accused persons have killed the Vasu by giving sleeping tablet and by pressing the pillow on his face, due to it Vasu was died.
31. PW17 H. Ramakrishnaiah deposed on 10.06.2013 CW25 has directed that one Vasu was died and UDR No.11/2013 was registered and dead body was in the KIMS hospital. As per the direction of CW25 he has conducted the inquest mahazar as per Ex.P12 of deceased Vasu in presence of CW11 to CW13. He further deposed at that time recorded the statement of CW14 to CW16. He was cross examined by the counsel for the accused. He 36 S.C.No.1110/2016 admitted that as per the police manual not below the rank of PSI inquest cannot be conducted. Even though at the time of conducting the inquest he was not designated as PSI or above the rank. He deposed PI has given oral direction to conduct the inquest of deceased. He deposed as per his opinion said person's death was natural death. He denied he has deposing falsely. In the present case PW10, PW11 are the inquest mahazar witnesses that they have not at all stated in their presence police have conducted the mahazar. Therefore the evidence of PW17, PW10 and PW11 are not corroborate with each other. Therefore the evidence of PW17 is not helpful to the prosecution case.
32. PW18 Sudarshan P.S. deposed he had worked as P.I. in central police station from June-2012 to July-2013. On 10.04.2013 one Srinivas came and lodged the oral complaint. Based on the oral complaint registered the case in UDR No.11/2013 under colomun 174C of Cr.P.C. Said oral complaint marked as Ex.P4 and UDR report marked as Ex.P20. He denied in the cross examination as the said 37 S.C.No.1110/2016 person was death was natural death and he registered the case under section 174C of Cr.P.C.
33. As per prosecution case accused No.1 had no cordial relationship with Vasu and accused No.1 is the 2 nd wife of Vasu. Vasu's 1st wife was died. After death of 1 st wife he married with the accused No.1. As per prosecution case Vase and 1st wife got son by name PW1. As per evidence of PW1 to PW3 there was quarrel between the Vasu and accused No.1 regarding financial matter. As per prosecution case accused No.1 having illegal relationship with accused No.2. That accused No.1 intended to kill Vasu as he was coming in the way of accused Nos.1 and 2. She intends to kill Vasu and she agreed to pay supari of Rs.5,00,000/-, same was intimated to the accused No.2. Then accused Nos.2 to 5 agreed to kill Vasu. Then on 9.4.2013 accused No.1 gave sleeping tablet to Vasu. Accused No.2 to 5 have caught hold the hands and legs of Vasu, accused No.1 has suffocated the Vasu with pillow, due to it Vasu was died. Thereafter accused No.1 intimated to PW1 and Srinivas who is the brother of Vasu. Then they came to the house where they have seen Vasu's body was 38 S.C.No.1110/2016 on the bed and frothing was in the mouth and immediately he was taken to KIMS hospital. After examination doctors of KIMS hospital told he was dead 4-5 hours back. Suspecting on accused No.1 said Srinivas lodged the complaint before Central police. Based on the complaint police have registered the case under UDR 11/2013. PW12 conducted the post morterm and he had given report that Vasu was died due to Cardiac Failure, then he was buried. After conducting the PM in the year 2013 police have not registered the case for the above said offence against accused No.1 nor other persons. Then investigation agency have created the story that on 05.05.2016 PW13 and PW14 were petrolling within the limits of their station. Then they came to know at about 3.30 pm., they came near F.B.S. road, on Bharathipura main road four persons were standing and quarreling with each other. After seeing them they try to flew away from the said place. Then they caught hold the accused Nos.2 to 5. Then on enquiry they narrated that accused No.1 agreed to give an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- supari to kill her husband. She had paid only Rs.2,50,000/-, remaining amount of Rs.2,50,000/- 39 S.C.No.1110/2016 was not paid. They were standing in the said place as accused No.1 was assured that she will come to the said place. Then accused Nos.2 to 4 were produced before PW16. Thereafter investigation was conducted that PW16 have registered the case for the offence punishable U/s 120(B) and 302 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and I.O had collected the evidence and documents and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/s 120(B) and 302 r/w 149 of I.P.C. Herein this case PW16 has try to make out the accused persons have committed the murder of Vasu and collected the documents. On careful perusal of the prosecution papers that in the year 2013 brother of Vasu Srinivas after death of Vasu he was suspected on accused No.1 and lodged the complaint. Vasu was taken to KIMS hospital, after examination doctors of KIMS hospital told he was dead 4-5 hours back. PW12 conducted the post morterm and he had given report that Vasu was died due to Cardiac Failure but not murdered by anyone. If the accused persons have committed the alleged offence on 9.4.2013 then investigating officer who was in the said station may registered the case for the offences 40 S.C.No.1110/2016 punishable U/s 120(B) and 302 r/w 149of I.P.C. Meanwhile in the year 2013 the investigating officer have registered under UDR but not filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. Even though after receiving the complaint from Srinivas he has enquired then he came to know if he was died due to Cardiac Failure but not anyone killed the Vasu. Thereafter in the year 2016 PW16 have registered the case for the offence punishable U/s 120(B) and 302 r/w 149of I.P.C. and conducted the investigation. In the present PW16 have not at all obtained any permission from the competent authority or higher officer to re-investigate the case. Moreover that competent authority or higher authority have not gave written direction to re-investigate the case against accused Nos.1 to 5. Inspite of it without receiving the instructions from the higher authorities he has registered the case for the offences punishable U/s 302 of I.P.C. As per evidence of PW1 to PW4 that they are the relatives of deceased Vasu. At no point of time they have deposed that they have seen the accused nos.1 to 5 have killed the Vasu and they have given the statement. On the other hand they have deposed 41 S.C.No.1110/2016 police have called to the station, they went to the station where the accused persons told that they have killed Vasu, then they have given the statement. On perusal of the prosecution case accused No.1 has got married Vasu after death of his 1st wife. PW1 to PW3 have deposed in their evidence Vasu and accused No.1 were quarreling with each other for financial matters. In this regard Vasu nor PW1 have not at all lodged the complaint before competent authority stating that accused No.1 is quarreling with Vasu for financial matters. As per evidence of PW1 that before the incident of 3 moths, accused No.1 left the house of Vasu. Thereafter she returned to the house, she apologized to Vasu and resided with him. Normally no husband will keep quite if his wife went away from the house more than 3-4 days, he may approach the concerned authority stating that his wife has not found in the house then he may lodged the complaint to trace out his wife. In the present case PW1 nor Vasu have not lodged the complaint stating that accused No.1 left the house and she was not returned within 3-4 days. As per evidence of PW1 she left the house and returned after 3 months. Inspite of it Vasu nor PW1 42 S.C.No.1110/2016 nor Srinivas who is the brother of Vasu not lodged the complaint. Normally in between spouses sometime quarrel may take for silly matters. Based on the silly reasons no spouse will do such heinous offence against their partner. In the present case PW1 to PW3 have not at all stated in their evidence that they have found injuries on the body of Vasu. On perusal of the evidence of PW1 to PW3 they deposed that they have not at all found any injuries on the dead body of Vasu. If five persons have killed Vasu then there must be some injuries on the face nor other parts of the body. If he was consumed sleeping tablets, then he was pushed by pillow on the face, due to suffocation he died then there must be some abrasion on the face or other parts of the body. But no such features were found on the dead body of Vasu. PW12 who conducted the PM has not stated in his evidence he was consumed the sleeping tablets. Even he has not stated he was consumed other articles that the was sleeping. Then the accused persons have committed the alleged offence. Even though in the said house accused No.1, Vasu and their two children were resided. If the accused Nos.1 to 5 have committed the 43 S.C.No.1110/2016 alleged offence then their children may wake up and they may intimated the alleged act of accused No.1 to 5 to the PW1 nor Srinivas stating that accused Nos.1 to 5 have committed the murder of Vasu. But in this case children who are material witnesses have not at all examined by the prosecution. However evidence of PW12 is material document to come to conclusion whether he was consumed the sleeping tablet nor other object then he was suffocated and killed by the accused persons. From the evidence of PW12 and PM report clearly reflects that he was not consumed the sleeping tablets nor other poisoned objects and after suffocation he was died. Even though PW16 has asked thrice times for opinion of PW12, in all three times he had opined that Vasu was not killed by anyone, he was dead due to Cardiac Failure and his death was natural one and issued report as per Ex.P13 to Ex.P15. Ex.P13 to Ex.P15 clearly shows that he was dead due to Cardiac Failure but not for any other reason. For the sake of arguments if he was killed by the accused persons on 9.4.2013 then his dead body was taken to KIMS hospital, if he was killed then and there the doctors may intimate the 44 S.C.No.1110/2016 concerned Police station stating that he was killed by someone. Then the central police may registered the case against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/s 120(B) and 302 r/w 149of I.P.C. but not under UDR. PW16 admitted in the evidence that I.O. who was in the year 2013 after receiving the complaint from Srinivas he was registered the case in UDR. PW16 has not at all stated in his evidence that the then I.O. has not investigated properly and registered the case in UDR. In the present case that none of the witnesses are eye witnesses to the incident nor there is complaint lodged by the PW1 nor Vasu nor accused No.1 regarding quarrel was taken. Under such circumstances prosecution has created the story against the accused Nos.1 to 5 stating that accused No.1 having illegal relationship with accused No.2. That accused No.1 intended to kill Vasu as he was coming in the way of accused Nos.1 and 2 and she agreed to pay supari of Rs.5,00,000/-, same was intimated to the accused No.2. Then accused Nos.2 to 5 agreed to kill Vasu. Then she paid Rs.2,50,000/-, then after completion of work she will pay the remaining balance. For the sake of arguments that on 45 S.C.No.1110/2016 9.4.2013 accused No.1 to 5 killed Vasu then till 2016 the accused Nos.2 to 5 were waiting for receiving the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- which cannot be presumed by anyone. Inspite of it PW16 has created the story stating that accused Nos.1 to 5 have committed the alleged offence. Even though PW13 and PW14 police constables who were patrolling then on seeing them accused Nos.2 to 5 try to flew away from the said place they were caught hold and they were brought to the station. Then they have given the statement that they have killed the Vasu. Thereafter PW1 to PW3 and other witnesses have called to the station. The said witnesses have told the police have told that the accused Nos.1 to 5 have killed Vasu. Even though the said witnesses told the accused persons are told in the station that they have killed Vasu then he has registered the case and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. As already stated above government has not directed him to re-investigate the case as the then I.O. has not conducted the case properly and registered the case under UDR. Even though without government order or from the higher officer, he has re-investigate the case. 46 S.C.No.1110/2016 Even PW16 is responsible officer if he found that accused Nos.1 to 5 have committed the alleged offence, then he may seek the instructions or order from higher officer to re- investigate the case against accused persons. Even though he received the report from PW12 stating that Vasu was died due to Cardiac Failure and his death was natural one but not by suffocation or by giving sleeping tablet nor killed by anyone by pressing the pillow on his face. Inspite of it PW16 try to make case against the accused Nos.1 to 5. For the sake of arguments if the accused persons have committed the offence in the year 2013 then after completion of formalities and after burial of Vasu then their attitude may change for getting balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. One or the other accused may ask the accused No.1 to pay the balance amount. Inspite of it from 2013-2016 that they have kept quite then all accused persons were in the said place waiting for accused No.1. In the present case PW16 has not made out any efforts from where the accused No.1 has brought an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. In this regard he has not at all investigated. That on perusal of the entire of evidence none of the eye 47 S.C.No.1110/2016 witnesses have produced in this case nor PW1 and Srinivas after death of Vasu they have taken Vasu to KIMS hospital. In the KIMS hospital after examining doctors have told Vasu was died. After examining in the KIMS hospital if he was killed by someone means then they may give opinion and same may be intimated to the police. In the present case from 2013 till 2016 no authorities have been informed to the PW16 stating that Vasu was murdered by giving sleeping tablets and by pressing pillow against his face. But no such documents put forth that the KIMS hospital has given the report. But no such documents were secured by the PW16. Before filing the charge sheet he has received the report from PW12 i.e., Ex.P13 to Ex.P15 then he had very well knowledge that Vasu was died due to Cardiac Failure but not by killing. Inspite of it he has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. On the other hand that PW1 nor PW2 to PW4 have not at all stated that Vasu was lodged the complaint nor accused No.1 lodged the complaint regarding quarrel was taken regarding financial matter. Without proper, cogent evidence Court cannot convict the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. Hence the 48 S.C.No.1110/2016 prosecution failed to bring home the guilty against the accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 by producing cogent evidence. Accordingly, I have answered Points No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
34. Point No.3 :- In view of the reasons discussed in Point No.1 to 6, I proceed to pass the following:
O R DE R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are hereby acquitted in respect of the offence punishable under Section 120(B) and 302 r/w 149 of IPC.
The articles M.O.1 which is worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period over.
In compliance to section 437(A) of Cr.P.C, the accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 executed personal bond and surety bond, same shall be continued for period of 6 months from today in anticipation any notice of any appeal or petition filed against the Judgment of this court.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on computer, printout taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 27th day of June 2024).
(A. EARANNA) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.49 S.C.No.1110/2016
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1 Divakar P.W.2 Anil P.W.3 Santosh P.W.4 Vijayalakshmi P.W.5 Rajamma P.W.6 Bhaskar P.W.7 Lakkapati P.W.8 Shanmugum P.W.9 Sampangi P.W.10 Gopinath P.W.11 Shrikanth P.W.12 Dr. S. R. Jaganath P.W.13 D. Suresh P.W.14 Shivaji Rao P.W.15 Nagaraj H.P. P.W.16 Vishwas A S P.W.17 H. Ramakrishnaiah P.W.18 Sudarshan P S
List of exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P1 - Complaint Ex.P1(a) - Signature of PW1 Ex.P1(b) - Signature of PW16 Ex.P1(c) - Signature of PW4 Ex.P1(d) - Signature of PW13 Ex.P2 - Photograph Ex.P3 - Spot mahazar Ex.P3(a) - Signature of PW2 Ex.P3(b) - Signature of PW16 Ex.P4 - Complaint of Srinivas Ex.P4(a) - Signature of Late Srinivas Ex.P5 - Statement of PW4 Ex.P6 - Statement of PW5 Ex.P7 - Statement of PW6 50 S.C.No.1110/2016 Ex.P8 - Seizer mahazar Ex.P8(a) - Signature of PW7 Ex.P8(b) - Signature of PW8 Ex.P8(c) - Signature of PW16 Ex.P9 - Statement of PW7 Ex.P10 - Statement of PW8 Ex.P11 - Notice Ex.P11(a) - Signature of PW10 Ex.P11(b) - Signature of PW11 Ex.P11(c) - Signature of PW17 Ex.P12 - Inquest Ex.P12(a) - Signature of PW10 Ex.P12(b) - Signature of PW11 Ex.P12(c) & (d) - Signature of PW17 Ex.P13 - Opinion report Ex.P13(a) - Signature of PW12 Ex.P14 - Opinion report Ex.P14(a) - Signature of PW12 Ex.P14(b) - Signature of PW16 Ex.P15 - Opinion report Ex.P15(a) - Signature of PW12 Ex.P16 - Report Ex.P16(a) - Signature of PW13 Ex.P16(b) - Signature of PW16 Ex.P17 - Sketch Map Ex.P17(a) - Signature of PW15 Ex.P17(b) - Signature of PW16 Ex.P18 - FIR Ex.P18(a) - Signature of PW16 Ex.P19 - Statement of accused No.1 Ex.P20 - Report in UDR No.11/2013 Ex.P20(a) - Signature of PW18 Ex.P21 - FSL report Ex.P22 - Histopathology report Ex.P23 - Statement of accused No.1 Ex.P24 - Request letter Ex.P24(a) - Signature of PW16 51 S.C.No.1110/2016
List of material objects marked on behalf of prosecution:-
M.O -1 - Pillow List of witnesses examined on behalf of defence :- NIL List of exhibits marked on behalf of defence :- NIL List of material objects marked on behalf of defence :-NIL (A. EARANNA), LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.