Bangalore District Court
State By Bagalagunte Police vs No: 3. Smt. Savithramma on 2 February, 2023
KABC010178522014
Presented on : 20-08-2014
Registered on : 20-08-2014
Decided on : 02-02-2023
Duration : 8 years, 5 months,
13 days
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 2 nd day of February 2023
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Kalpana M.S.,
B.Sc., LL.M.,PGD-CLCF.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.908/2014
COMPLAINANT:- State by Bagalagunte Police
Station, Bengaluru.
-Vs-
ACCUSED NO: 3. Smt. Savithramma,
W/o. Prakasha,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at. Pattasomanahalli,
Kasaba Hobli,Pandavapura
Taluk,Mandya District.
2
S.C.No.908/2014
(A.2-dead- Case abated)
TABULATION OF EVENTS
1. Occurence of the offence & time: 17.07.2012, 5.30 p.m.
2. Report of the offence & time: 18.07.2012 , 11.30 a.m.
3. Date of arrest of the Accused
persons : -
4. Release of the accused : -
5. Name of the complainant : Smt. Shanthamma
6. Date of commencement of trial: 13.05.2016
7. Date of closure of trial : 16.04.2022
8. Offences complained of : Sec.306 and 498-A
of I.P.C.,
9. Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.3
not found guilty
10. State represented by : Learned Public
Prosecutor
11. Accused defended by : Sri.N.R.G., Advocate
for A.3
3
S.C.No.908/2014
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Police of Bagalagunte police station, Bengaluru have filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/s.306 R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C., in Cr.No.495/2012.
2. It is case of the prosecution that, accused No.1 has taken the daughter of Cw.1-Shanthamma and Cw.2- Marigowda in love marriage and started residing with his parents accused No.2 and 3. Out of their wedlock, one girl child was born on 31.01.2010. Thereafter, all the accused persons with common intention to perform second marriage to the accused No.1, started giving physical and mental harassment with dowry demand. Failed to tolerate their harassment, Sunitha started to reside in her parental house since one year. Such being the case, on 10.7.2012 at Nanjundappa building, 4 S.C.No.908/2014 Sidedahalli, Bengaluru, accused No.1 with the instigation of accused No.2 and 3 provoked deceased-Sunitha in front of public and neighbours by saying that, " ಬಬಬಬಳ ಮಮಮಡಬ, ಸಬಳಬ ಮಮಮಡಬ, ಊರನಮನ ಬಟಮಟ ಇಲಲಗಬ ಬಮದದದಬಯಯ, ನಬನಮ ನಬಬಣಮ ಹಯಕಕಬಬಮಡಮ ಇಲಬಲ ಸಯಯ, ನಬನಮ ಸಯಯದಬ ಇದದರಬ , ನಮಮನಬನಲಯಲ ನಯನಬಬ ಸಯಯಸಮತಬತಬನಬ. ಒಮದಬರಡಮ ದನ ಬಟಮಟ ಬರಮತಬತಬನಬ ಅಷಟರಲಲ ನನನ ಹಬಣ ನಬಬಬಡಬಬಬಕಮ". Thereafter, on 17.7.2012, deceased-Sunitha committed suicide by hanging herself to the iron beam with saree and thereby accused persons committed offece of abetement of suicide thereby committed offences punishable U/s.306 and 498-A of I.P.C.
3. On the basis of complaint lodged by Cw.1, Investigation Officer registered F.I.R., proceeded to the spot, conducted spot panchnama, inquest panchnama, seized materials found on the spot. Accused were arrested, interrogated and recorded their voluntary 5 S.C.No.908/2014 statements. After recording statements of witnesses and collecting Post Mortem Report, Investigation Officer filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/s.306 of I.P.C.
4. Cognizance for the offence shown in the charge sheet was taken against the accused persons by the Learned Magistrate. During the crime stage, accused No.1 not traced out. Hence, case against accused No.1 was split up. Thereafter, criminal case against accused No.2 and 3 was registered in C.C.No.13186/2013 on the file of VII-Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Since offences alleged against accused No.2 and 3 are exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, this case is committed to the court of sessions.
6
S.C.No.908/2014
5. After committal, the case is registered as S.C.No.908/2014. Prosecution opened the case as required U/s.226 of Cr.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3. No grounds made out to discharge the accused persons. Hence, charge against accused No.2 and 3 was framed, read over and explained. They denied charges and claims trial. During trial, accused No.2 reported to be dead. Hence, case against accused No.2 is abated. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State filed application U/s.216 of Cr.P.C., for framing of additional charge U/s.498-A of I.P.C., which came to be allowed. Hence, charge U/s.498-A of I.P.C. against accused No.3 was framed, read over and explained. She denied charges and claims trial.
6. To prove the ingredients of the offences leveled against the accused No.3, prosecution examined 12 7 S.C.No.908/2014 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.12 out of 17 witnesses cited in the charge sheet and got marked 11 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 and got identified 5 material objects at Mo.1 to Mo.5. Learned public prosecutor has given up Cw.3. Prosecution failed to secure the presence of witnesses. Hence, Pw.4(Cw.5) and Cw.8 are dropped. Cw.2 and Cw.11 reported to be dead.
7. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused No.3 U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused No.3 has denied all the incriminating material evidence appearing against her, but did not choose to lead defence evidence.
8. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the materials on record.
9. The points that arise for my determination are: 8
S.C.No.908/2014
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused No.1 has taken the daughter of Cw.1-Shanthamma and Cw.2-Marigowda in love marriage and started residing with his parents accused No.2 and 3. Out of their wedlock, one girl child was born on 31.01.2010. Thereafter, all the accused persons with common intention to perform second marriage to the accused No.1, started giving physical and mental harassment and induced her to take away her life thereby accused No.3 committed offece punishable U/s.498-A of I.P.C. ?
2. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused No.3 along with other accused with an intention to drive deceased-Sunitha to commit suicide subjecting her to cruelty by giving mental and physical torture, thereby deceased - Sunitha on 10.07.2012 9 S.C.No.908/2014 at about 5.30 p.m., in the house situated at Nanjundappa Building, 5th Cross, Vishweshwara Layout, Sidedahalli, Bengaluru city committed suicide by tying saree tightly to her neck thereby accused No.3 committed offence of abetement of suicide punishable U/s.306 of IPC ?
3. What Order ?
10. On appreciation of evidence, documents and for the reasons to be stated hereinafter, I answered for the aforesaid points as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: In the Negative Point No.3: As per final order for the following:10
S.C.No.908/2014 REASONS
11. POINTS NO.1 & 2:-These two points are interrelated, hence they are taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
It is the case of the prosecution that, accused No.3 being mother-in-law of deceased-Sunitha along with other accused persons subjected her to physical and mental harassment with demand of dowry and driven her to commit suicide. That on 10.07.2012 at about 5.30 p.m., in the house situated at Nanjundappa Building, 5 th Cross, Vishweshwara Layout, Sidedahalli, Bengaluru city committed suicide by tying saree tightly to her neck thereby accused No.3 committed offences of cruelty through dowry harassment through which, causing 11 S.C.No.908/2014 abetement to commit suicide thereby punishable U/s.498-A and 306 of IPC .
12. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused No.3, prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses from Pw.1 to Pw.12 and got marked documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 and identified Mo.1 to Mo.5. Pw.1 is the complainant and mother of the deceased-Sunitha. Pw.2 is maternal uncle of the deceased-Sunitha. Pw.3 and Pw.4 are the panchs to the inquest panchnama. Pw.5 is brother of the deceased. Pw.6 is medical officer, Pw.7 is first investigating officer, who registered F.I.R. and has partially conducted investigation. Pw.8 is police official, who produced Post Mortem Report and along with Mo.1 to 5 before the Investigating Officer. Pw.10 is the second investigating officer, who conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet. Pw.11 is police official deputed to 12 S.C.No.908/2014 search and apprehend the accused persons. Pw.12 is the panch to the spot panchnama.
13. Pw.1-Shanthamma deposed regarding the marriage of her daughter- Sunitha with accused No.1 and they have got one girl child by name Minchu. Deceased was working as teacher in the private school at Kunthi Betta, Pandavapura. After the marriage, they were lived happily for a period of 4 years and thereafter, accused No.1 to 3 started dowry harassment. Thereafter, Sunitha returned to their house and refused to go back. They have conducted panchayath with elders of the village. In meetings, it was decided that, accused No.1 and deceased-Sunitha shall live separately for a period of 3 months. At that time, accused No.1 attempted to stab Sunitha with knife. Therefore, they have taken Sunitha to Bengaluru and started to reside therein. At 13 S.C.No.908/2014 that time, accused No.1 threatened to kill Sunitha by saying that, within 3 days she should die otherwise, he will kill all of them. One day, after returning from the school, Sunitha hanged herself to the ceiling fan with her saree. At that time, Cw.2 present and get her down and shifted to hospital. Doctor declared that, she was brought dead. Mother of Sunitha filed complaint. This witness identified the Ex.P.1-complaint as well as Ex.P.2- mahazar and identified the clothes worn by her daughter at the time of committal of suicide.
13.1) In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that, deceased was residing in the parental house since one year six months. The deceased has performed love marriage and parents have not attended their marriage. Daughter of the deceased i.e., grand-daughter of Pw.1 by name Minchana is staying in the accused 14 S.C.No.908/2014 house since her birth and pursuing her education. It was suggested that, Pw.1 is against the love marriage of the deceased and hence, took her back to their house. Rest of the cross-examination is denial.
14. Cw.16-G.Krishnappa, the then A.S.I., of Peenya police station, Bengaluru examined as Pw.7. He deposed that, on 18.07.2012 at 11.00 a.m., he received the written complaint from the mother of the deceased and registered Ex.P.7- F.I.R. He submitted the case file to Cw.17- for further investigation. In the cross- examination, it was suggested that, the F.I.R. was sent to the court on 19.07.2012 at 3.35 p.m. It was also suggested that, a false F.I.R. was registered against the accused persons.
15
S.C.No.908/2014
15. Cw.17-B.N.Lohith, the then P.S.I. of Peenya police station examined as Pw.10 and he took over case file and proceeded with further investigation and conducted Ex.P.2- spot panchnama in the presence of panch witnesses. This witness further states that, he has sent requisition to the Special Tahsildhar as per Ex.P.8 to conduct Inquest mahazar. On 21.07.2012 he enquired the relatives and witnesses and recorded their statements. On 11.9.2012, received Ex.P.6-P.M.Report along with clothes present on the dead body and included in the Ex.P.9- Property Form. This witness identified the photos of the deceased, her husband and daughter as per Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. On 24.07.2013, conducted arrest procedure of accused No.3, who was on anticipatory bail granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and released on bail.
16
S.C.No.908/2014
16. Cw.7-Ravi examined as Pw.12. He is the one of the panch to the Ex.P.2-panchnama. He denied conducting of the spot panchnama in his presence and seizure of the any material objects in his presence. Another panch witness- Cw.8 is not secured by the prosecution.
17. Cw.4- Madan K. examined as Pw.3 and Cw.5- Madhu examined as Pw.4, are the witnesses to the Ex.P.5- Inquest panchnama. Another witness Cw.3- Umesh S/o.Poovanna was not examined before the court. Both Pw.3 and Pw.4 state that, in the month of July 2012, they saw the dead body of the deceased at Sapthagiri Hospital mortuary and signed the Inquest panchnama. The deceased killed herself by hanging. They are friends of brother of deceased-Sunitha. 17
S.C.No.908/2014
18. Cw.6-Lingaraju examined as Pw.2 is the maternal uncle of deceased-Sunitha. This witness states that, the marriage of Sunitha was taken place with accused -Shivakumar. After birth of girl child, there was dowry harassment to the deceased-Sunitha. Hence, she left the matrimonial home and started residing with the parents. Accused No.1 came there and made galata by braking window doors. Mother of the deceased Pw.1 has lodged complaint in this regard before Pandavapura police. Thereafter, Sunitha was working as teacher in the private school. Accused No.1 approached there and abused deceased with filthy language and threatened her. At that time, this witness was present and tried to put sense by advising him. Accused No.1 went of by saying that, he will take her even after killing. It is further statement of this witness that, about 7 years 18 S.C.No.908/2014 back, Pw.1 telephoned him and informed about the suicide. He immediately reached the spot and informed the Peenya Police. They came there and get down the body and taken to the hospital. This witness says that, Sunitha died due to the harassment of accused No.1 to 3 and the same is informed to the police. This witness identified the photographs at Ex.P.3 and 4 and Ex.P.5- Inquest panchnama.
18.1) In the cross-examination, it has been elicited that, deceased-Sunitha was working at Bengaluru since two years before the date of death. Sunitha and accused No.1 have performed love marriage. This witness and Pw.1 have not attended the wedding, as nobody in the family have agreed for their marriage. The child of the deceased is studying in the Puttasomanahalli village before and after the incident. It was suggested that, 19 S.C.No.908/2014 since no body in the parental family of Sunitha have willingness for her love marriage, they have taken Sunitha alone to Bengaluru by leaving her child at Puttasomanahalli, due to that reason, deceased -Sunitha was upset and committed suicide. Rest of the cross- examination is denial.
19. Cw.9-Mahesh examined as Pw.5 is the brother of the deceased-Sunitha. This witness states about the love marriage of his sister with accused No.1/Shivakumar. After birth of girl child, accused No.1 to 3 started harassing deceased-Sunitha and demanded dowry. Due to unbearable torture of the accused persons, after 4 months from the date of delivery, Sunitha tried to kill herself by jumping into the canal. The villagers rescued and brought her to parental house. Thereafter, panchayath held and decided that, 20 S.C.No.908/2014 Sunitha and her daughter shall stay in the parental house. On the date of panchayath decision, at 10.00 p.m., accused No.1-Shivakumar came near the house of Pw.1 and made galata and also broken the window doors. In this aspect, Pw.1 has lodged complaint and the case is pending for adjudication. Pw.5 further states that, in the year 2013 at 11.00 a.m., when he was returning from his land, accused No.1 assaulted, fractured on his right hand. The complaint is lodged with Pandavapura police station and case is pending for adjudication. Accused No.1 frequently came near his house and made galata and threatened Sunitha to kill all her family members. Thus, Sunitha killed herself.
20. Cw.14-Jagadeesh examined as Pw.9. He has acquaintance with the family of the deceased-Sunitha. It is stated that, the parents of the accused No.1 opposed 21 S.C.No.908/2014 his love marriage with deceased- Sunitha. Hence, accused No.2 and 3 subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. Hence, deceased-Sunitha left the matrimonial home and staying with parents. Accused No.1 came there and used to make galata near the parental house and also in the working place of the deceased. On 10.07.2012, accused No.1 went near the house of the Cw.1 and abused deceased in front of the neighbours and the public and instigated her to kill herself. This information was passed by the parents of Sunitha. On 17.07.2012, Sunitha committed suicide, due to the acts of accused No.1 at the instigation of accused No.2 and 3. This witness has given statement to the police to that effect and identified the accused persons. The cross-examination is denial. It was 22 S.C.No.908/2014 suggested that, parents of Sunitha relatives to this witness.
21. Cw.15-Dr.Praveen, Professor, M.S.Ramaiah Hospital examined as Pw.6. This witness stated that, on 18.07.2012, on requisition of the Special Tahsildhar, Bengaluru North Taluk, he examined the dead body of deceased and found following wounds;
An oblique ligature present over front and sides of the neck, running upwards and backwards towards nape of the neck, where it is interrupted, and measures 19 x 2.5 cm. It is present over and above thyroid cartilage and is situated 6 cm below left ear lobule, 7 cm below chin and 2 cm below light ear lobule, skin over ligature mark is dry, hard and pachmentised. On dissection of neck tissues beneath ligature mark are pale and listening. Hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage are intact.
23
S.C.No.908/2014 This witness opined that, death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. After examination of the dead body, he has given Ex.P.6-Post Mortem Report. He identified the material objects at Mo.1 to 5 before the court and identified his signatures. Since there is no dispute regarding death of Sunitha by hanging, the accused persons have not chosen to cross-examine the doctor.
22. Cw.12- N.Deepak Kumar the then police constable at Peenya police station examined as Pw.8. This witness was deputed to collect the P.M.Report and materials objects from M.S.Ramaiah Hospital. Accordingly, he produced the Ex.P.6-P.M.Report and Mo.1 to Mo.5 before the Investigating Officer and gave statement. The cross-examination is denial. 24
S.C.No.908/2014
23. Cw.13-Kantharaju examined as Pw.11. He was deputed to search and apprehend accused persons. He visited Puttasomanahalli and obtained information of absconding accused and reported the same to the Investigating Officer. The cross-examination is denial.
24. Relying on the evidence placed on record, Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons punishable U/s.306, 498-A of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt. Through the evidence of Pw.1- Shanthamma, Pw.3-Madhan, Pw.5-Mahesh, Pw.9- Jagadhish and medical evidence, the prosecution established the motive of the accused persons in committing the heinous offence of abatement to suicide. The medical evidence and the evidence of the police officials and the investigating officers proved the guilt 25 S.C.No.908/2014 beyond reasonable doubt that, knowing fully well that mental and physical harassment to extract dowry and ill treating her before the neighbours and the public, so as to drive her for suicide, the accused No.1 intentionally made galata near the house and also at her work place. Accordingly, accused persons committed the alleged offences. It is a fit case for conviction with maximum punishment.
25. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused persons vehemently argued that, it is alleged by the prosecution that, accused No.1 to 3 with common intention to demand dowry subjected deceased-Sunitha for mental and physical cruelty, so as to drive her to commit suicide. The prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of the interested witnesses. The neighbouring house residents to the place of incident and the 26 S.C.No.908/2014 colleagues of the deceased Sunitha are not examined. The case against the prime accused is abated, due to his death. Accused No.3 has not at all committed the alleged offences. The evidence placed on record is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused No.3 for the alleged offences. The chain of circumstances is not completed. The prosecution has not placed sufficient, acceptable and corroborative evidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, it is prayed that, by extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused No.3, she is entitled for the acquittal.
26. In the light of the evidence placed by the prosecution and on hearing both sides, this court has given anxious consideration materials on record, specifically the oral testimony of the prosecution 27 S.C.No.908/2014 witnesses, exhibited documents and the material objects. As rightly contended on behalf of the accused person, there is glaring discrepancy in the evidence of the mother, brother and maternal uncle of the deceased- Sunitha. However, they have unequivocally stated that, the family of the deceased was against the love marriage of deceased-Sunitha with accused No.1/Shivakumar. They have also not attended their marriage. Per contra, it is forthcoming from the record and also from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that, after marriage, accused No.1/Shivakumar and deceaed- Sunitha were staying in Puttasomanahalli along with the parents of the accused No.1 i.e., accused No.2 and 3. It shows that, accused No.2 and 3 have accepted the love marriage of deceased-Sunitha and welcomed her into their house. It has also come on record that, since from 28 S.C.No.908/2014 her birth, the daughter of the deceased by name Minchana is staying with accused No.3. If at all, the accused No.3 is against the love marriage and harassing deceased-Sunitha after birth of Minchana, she would not have take care of the girl child since her birth. In usual course, the grand-daughter normally stays with the maternal grand-parents. But in the case, the scenario is different, which creates doubt. It is also to be noted that, according to the say of mother, brother and maternal uncle of the deceased-Sunitha, panchayath held and it was decided that, Sunitha and her daughter Minchana should stay in her parental house i.e., in the house of Pw.1. But, for the reasons best known to them, Sunitha alone stayed with parents, whereas her young daughter stays with accused persons. One can imagine the trauma 29 S.C.No.908/2014 of the mother to live alone in the parental house by leaving her young kid in the matrimonial home.
27. That apart, there is glaring discrepancy in the evidence of mother and maternal uncle of the deceased. Pw.1-Shanthamma, the mother deposed that, about 4 years back one day, deceased-Sunitha hanged to the ceiling fan with her saree. At that time, the father of the deceased was present and get her down to the floor. Whereas, the maternal uncle of the deceased Pw.2 says that, he got the information of suicide of the deceased- Sunitha from Pw.1 and he immediately approached there and saw the deceased hanging from the iron beam. Immediately, he gave information to the Peenya Police, they have visited and removed the deceased from the hang. There is different between the version of the Pw.1 and Pw.2 that, Pw.1 says that, she hanged herself to 30 S.C.No.908/2014 the fan, whereas Pw.2 says that, she was hanging from the iron beam. So also, Pw.1 says that, her husband removed deceased-Sunitha from the hang, whereas Pw.2 says that, Peenya Police have visited there and removed the body from the hang. Nevertheless, the father of the deceased is neither examined before the court nor proper explanation is placed for non-examination.
28. Further, Pw.5, the brother of the deceased and Pw.2 maternal uncle of the deceased state that, accused No.1 had made galata before the house of the Pw.1 and a complaint was lodged by Pw.1 in the Pandavapura Police Station. But, Pw.1 has not stated about lodging of the complaint. No such complaint is placed before the court. At the same time, Pw.5 further states that, accused No.1 has assaulted him and caused fracture and a complaint was lodged in the 31 S.C.No.908/2014 Pandavapura Police Station and the case is pending consideration. But, Pw.1 and Pw.2 are silent about this aspect. The details of the complaint and the corresponding case is not placed before the court. Thus, it creates genuine doubt about the truthfulness of these witnesses.
29. It is pertinent to note, prosecution alleges that, accused No.1 to 3 have subjected the deceased
-Sunitha to dowry harassment and treated her with mental and physical cruelty. Being unable to tolerate the harassment, Sunitha has left the matrimonial home about 1 ½ years back from the date of alleged incident and started to stay with her parents. It is not the case of the prosecution or the prosecution witnesses that, accused No.3 visited the parental house of deceased frequently and causing harassment by demand of dowry. 32
S.C.No.908/2014 So also, when the parents, brother and relatives of the deceased-Sunitha are unhappy with her love marriage and failed to participate in the marriage, accused No.3 being mother-in-law stays with the couple and also looking after the grand-daughter before and after the incident. In case, the deceased-Sunitha intend to kill herself due to the alleged harassment by the accused No.3, she would have committed suicide in the matrimonial house or immediately after return to her parental house. But, she has not taken any such steps till 1 ½ years from the date of shifting her stay to the parental house. Thus, this court finds substance in the defence of the accused No.3 that, since the parents of the deceased-Sunitha are unhappy with her love marriage, they have taken their daughter alone to their house even leaving her child with the accused persons, 33 S.C.No.908/2014 which is the reason for taking extreme step by the deceased-Sunitha.
30. Pw.3 and Pw.4, the witnesses to the Ex.P.5- Inquest panchnama are the friends to the brother of the deceased-Sunitha. Hence, there is tendency of deposing in favour of the Pw.5-Mahesh. Further, the testimony of Pw.4-Madhu is not remained for the consideration of court, as he has not subjected for cross-examination in spite of sufficient opportunities. Same analogy is applicable to the testimony of Pw.9-Jagadhish, who has close acquaintance with the family of the deceased- Sunitha. It is to be noted that, except the family members and the closely related persons of the deceased, investigating officer has not chose to examine the independent material witnesses such as neighbours, colleagues and the residents of Puttasomanahalli to 34 S.C.No.908/2014 prove the alleged dowry harassment and the cruelty attributable to the accused No.1 to 3. Thus, this court is hesitant to place reliance on the testimony of the interested witnesses, which suffers from inconsistency and non-corroboration.
31. Be that as it may, after deceased started to reside with her parents for a period of 1 ½ years, there is no such allegation of dowry harassment, physical ro mental harassment to the deceased-Sunitha by the accused No.3. It is to be noted that, accused No.1 and 2 are dead and case against them stand abated. The main allegation of making galata near the parental house and work place of the deceased is by the accused No.1. Accused No.3 has not committed any such misdeeds. Even if the version of the prosecution that, accused No.1 has committed the said acts, at the instigation of accused 35 S.C.No.908/2014 No.3, is to be believed, in a normal human tendency, any person kill himself/ herself immediately after the incident at the heat of the moment. Prosecution alleges that, accused No.1 went near the house of Pw.1 on 10.7.2012 and abused the deceased before the public, which made her to kill herself. But, the incident of suicide taken place on 17.07.2012, i.e., after lapse of 7 days. In case, deceased was really upset with the alleged misdeeds of accused No.1, the incident of suicide might have taken place immediately after the alleged galata dated 10.07.2012. But, that is not the case here. This aspect throws shadow on the prosecution case to link the alleged misdeeds of accused persons more specifically accused No.3 with the suicide of deceased- Sunitha. Detailed appreciation of the medical evidence is not required, as there is no dispute regarding death of 36 S.C.No.908/2014 the deceased-Sunitha by hanging. The evidence of the police official is formal in nature and does not serve purpose in the light of the uncorroborated and inconsistent evidence of interested witnesses. Thus, the evidence on record is not sufficient to link the accused No.3 to the alleged offences.
32. From the discussion on the above paras, this court is of the opinion that, prosecution has not placed sufficient evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused No.3 along with accused No.1 and 2 with common intention to perform second marriage to the accused No.1, started giving physical and mental harassment with dowry demand. Being unable to tolerate their harassment, Sunitha started to reside in her parental house since one year. Such being the case, on 10.7.2012 at Nanjundappa building, Sidedahalli, 37 S.C.No.908/2014 Bengaluru, accused No.1 with the instigation of accused No.2 and 3 provoked deceased-Sunitha in front of public and neighbours by saying that, " ಬಬಬಬಳ ಮಮಮಡಬ, ಸಬಳಬ ಮಮಮಡಬ, ಊರನಮನ ಬಟಮಟ ಇಲಲಗಬ ಬಮದದದಬಯಯ, ನಬನಮ ನಬಬಣಮ ಹಯಕಕಬಬಮಡಮ ಇಲಬಲ ಸಯಯ, ನಬನಮ ಸಯಯದಬ ಇದದರಬ , ನಮಮನಬನಲಯಲ ನಯನಬಬ ಸಯಯಸಮತಬತಬನಬ. ಒಮದಬರಡಮ ದನ ಬಟಮಟ ಬರಮತಬತಬನಬ ಅಷಟರಲಲ ನನನ ಹಬಣ ನಬಬಬಡಬಬಬಕಮ". Thereafter, on 17.7.2012, deceased-Sunitha committed suicide by hanging herself to the iron beam with saree and thereby accused No.3 committed offence of cruelty so as to drive deceased-Sunitha to kill herself thereby committed the offences punishable U/s.306 and 498-A of I.P.C. Accordingly, points No.1 and 2 under consideration are answered in the Negative.
33. POINT NO.3: In view of the above findings on points No.1 and 2, accused No.3 is entitled for acquittal. Hence, following order is made;
38
S.C.No.908/2014 ORDER Invoking provision U/s.235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, accused No.3 is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.306, 498-A of Indian Penal Code.
Case against accused No.2 is abated.
Bail bonds and surety bonds U/s.437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure executed by accused No.3 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
Mo.1 to Mo.5 are worthless articles, hence, the same are ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal period.
39
S.C.No.908/2014 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 2nd day of February 2023.) (KALPANA M.S.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
40
S.C.No.908/2014 A N N EXU RE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 Shanthamma Pw.2 Lingaraju Pw.3 Madhan Pw.4 Madhu Pw.5 Mahesh Pw.6 Dr.Praveen Pw.7 G.Krishnappa Pw.8 N.Deepakumar Pw.9 Jagadeesh Pw.10 B.N.Lohith Pw.11 Kantharaju Pw.12 Ravi 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.1(b) Signature of Pw.7 Ex.P.2 Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P.2(b) Signature of Pw.10 41 S.C.No.908/2014 Ex.P.3 & Ex.P.4 Photographs Ex.P.3(a) & 4(a) Signatures of Pw.10 Ex.P.5 Inquest mahazar Ex.P.5(a) Signature of Pw.3 Ex.P.5(b) Signature of Pw.4 Ex.P.6 Post Mortem Report Ex.P.6(a) Signature of Pw.6 Ex.P.6(b) Signature of Pw.10 Ex.P.7 F.I.R. Ex.P.7(a) Signature of Pw.7 Ex.P.8 Requisition Ex.P.8(a) Signature of Pw.10 Ex.P.9 Property Form No.237/2012 Ex.P.9(a) Signature of Pw.10 Ex.P.10 Report issued by PC. Deepak Ex.P.10(a) Signature of Pw.10 Ex.P.11 Report Ex.P.11(a) Signature of Pw.10 IV. For Defence side:- -Nil- V. List of material objects marked:- Mo.1 Blue colour Chudidar top Mo.2 Blue colour Chudidar pant Mo.3 White colour slip Mo.4 Under wear 42 S.C.No.908/2014 Mo.5 Saree
Mo.1(a) to Mo.5(a) Signatures of Pw.6 (KALPANA M.S.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
43
S.C.No.908/2014 Accused No.3 present.
Judgment pronounced in the open Court. (Vide separate judgment) ORDER Invoking provision U/s.235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, accused No.3 is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.306 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code.
Case against accused No.2 is abated.
Bail bond and surety bonds
U/s.437-A of Code of Criminal
Procedure executed by accused No.3
shall be in force for a period of six
months from this day.
44
S.C.No.908/2014
Mo.1 to Mo.5 are worthless
articles, hence, the same are
ordered to be destroyed, 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.
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.