Bangalore District Court
State By Karnataka vs Mahesh on 4 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 4 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
Smt. SANDHYA.S, M.A., LL.B. (spl.)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C.No.825/2014
Complainant State by Karnataka
Kamakshipalya P S,
Bengaluru.
(By the learned
Public Prosecutor)
Accused Mahesh,
S/o. Nagaraj,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.605, 9th 'A'
Cross, 2nd Mainroad,
Agraharadasarahalli,
Bangalore - 79.
(Sri.N.Prashant,
Advocate)
Date of offence 01.05.2014
Date of report of offence 01.05.2014
Name of the complainant Smt.Bhagyamma
Date of commencement of 22.07.2015
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 07.02.2020
2 S.C.No.825/2014
Offences complained of Sec.498A, 306 of
Indian Penal Code
Opinion of the Judge Accused not found
guilty
State represented by Learned Public
Prosecutor
Accused persons defended Sri.N.Prashant,
by Advocate.
JU DG M E NT
This case is the result of charge sheet filed by the
complainant Police, Kamakshipalya Police Station against
the accused for the offence punishable under
Section.498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that
the complainant C.W.1, Smt. Bhagyamma, who is mother
of the deceased Divya, registered the case against the
accused as per Cr.No.220/2014 for the offence punishable
U/s. 498A, 306 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of
investigation the charge sheet was filed against the
accused, for the offence punishable U/s. 498A, 306 of
Indian Penal Code. Further it is alleged that the deceased
Divya was staying along with the accused after the
3 S.C.No.825/2014
marriage. That the accused had lost money in Travels
business and had made heavy loans and was not looking
after the necessities of the deceased and her son. That
the accused used to pick up quarrel with the deceased
stating that just because theirs was a love marriage, his
relatives are not in touch with him and was telling the
deceased to take poison or hang herself and die. That on
01.05.2014 at 10.45 to 11.00 a.m in the house of
accused, the deceased had committed suicide by tying
saree to the roof angle top by hanging herself. Hence, the
accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide by
subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty, instigating
her to die and thereby the accused committed the offence
as alleged, is the case of the prosecution.
3. As discussed herein above, on the complaint of
C.W.1, Bhagyamma, the mother of the deceased, the
complainant police registered this case and after
completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the
4 S.C.No.825/2014
accused before the learned Magistrate. At the initial stage
the accused was arrested and later was released on bail.
4. In pursuance of service of summons, the accused
appeared through his counsel before the learned
Magistrate and got enlarged on bail. The learned
Magistrate furnished copy of charge sheet to the accused
and hence, the provision of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. was
complied with. As the offence charge-sheeted against the
accused is exclusively triable by the sessions court, the
learned Magistrate acting under section 209 of Cr.P.C. has
committed this case to Hon'ble Principal District and
Sessions Court, Bengaluru and later Hon'ble Principal
District and Sessions Court has sent this case to this
Court for trial and hence, the matter is taken up before
this Court accordingly for further proceedings. The
accused was already on bail and later was present before
this court.
5. My predecessor had framed charges against the
accused for the offence punishable under section 498A,
5 S.C.No.825/2014
306 of Indian Penal Code, on 28.11.2014, to which
accused has pleaded not guilty and thereby he has
claimed to be tried of the said offences.
6. In support of the case of prosecution out of the
19 witness cited in the charge sheet 10 witnesses are
examined by the prosecution, as P.W.1 to P.W.10. The
prosecution has got marked 11 documents at Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.11 and one Material Object was marked as M.O.No.1.
After closing the evidence of prosecution, this Court has
recorded the statement of accused under section 313 of
Cr.P.C, for which the accused has denied the
incriminating materials forthcoming against him in the
evidence of prosecution witnesses as false. Further the
accused has chosen to submit evidence on his behalf
and got examined as D.W.1 and also got marked one
document which is marked as Ex.D.1.
7. Heard the argument of the learned Public
Prosecutor, that in all, 10 witness have been examined
and 11 exhibits marked and one material objects also
6 S.C.No.825/2014
marked. That the portion of P.W.1 will count for 304B,
that there is injury on the neck of the victim. That the
victim had problem. The sequence of eivdence, changing
of residence, not able to work, so demanded dowry shows
the act of the accused. That P.W.1 is the mother of
C.W.11 and 12. P.W.1 has mentioned that her daughter
was not taken care of. That women is mother of house,
she has to be taken care of. That the case against the
accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt and hence,
the accused be convicted for the offences charged is the
argument of the Learned Public Prosecutor.
8. Heard the argument of the defence counsel,
Sri.N.Prashant, Advocate, who has vehemently argued
that C.W.4 turned hostile, C.W.10, 8, 5, 11, 12, 16, 18 are
given up. C.W.13 and 14 are eye witnesses. C.W.13 is
given up and C.W.14 has turned hostile. C.W.16 is Doctor,
C.W.7,8 and 9 are blood relatives. That the marriage of
accused and the deceased was a love marriage. This
marriage was inter-caste marriage. That regarding loan
there is no wisper in the complaint and Investigating
7 S.C.No.825/2014
Officer has not made proper investigation and added
their names. That the deposition of P.W.5 cannot be
trusted. P.W.3 is the sister. That the deceased had made
loan and so the accused is innocent. Mahajar and post-
mortem are not proved. That the deceased had a traveling
agency. The material object is mentioned as saree but one
veil is produced as M.O and if the material object is
irrelevant, then conviction can not be granted. That one
child was born and now is with the accused. That if 498A
of IPC is not proved then 306 of IPC cannot be said to be
proved. That the ingredient of sec 306 of Indian Penal
Code is not proved and prosecution has failed to prove the
case beyond all reasonable doubt. That the deposition
does not bring in ambit of Section 498A, 306 of I.P.C and
hence the accused be acquitted is the argument of the
counsel for the accused.
9. Perused all the oral and documentary evidence on
record. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused gave physical and mental 8 S.C.No.825/2014 harassment to deceased after the marriage and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable u/sec. 498A of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased without bearing with the ill-treatment and harassment on 01.05.2014 in between 10.45 to 11.00 p.m in the house of accused, had committed suicide by hanging to the roof top angle with saree and accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC?
3. What order?
10. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and on considering all the oral and all the documentary evidence on record, my findings on the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : In the negative
Point No.3 : As per final order
for the following:
:R E A S O N S:
11. Points No.1 and 2: The points no. 1 and 2 are
taken up together as they are related to each other and to 9 S.C.No.825/2014 avoid repetition in the discussion. As stated herein above, it is not in dispute that the complainant C.W.1 Bhagyamma, is the mother of the deceased Divya and also that accused is the husband of the deceased.
12. The offence charged against the accused is Under Section 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, unless the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that when the deceased was residing with the accused , the accused instigated the deceased to die and thereby the accused subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty, thereafter without bearing such ill-treatment by the accused, the deceased committed suicide by tying a saree to the roof top angle, no case can be made out against the accused for the offence charged. In this background, the evidence forthcoming from the prosecution should be considered for proving the offences charged against the accused.
13. As stated herein above, the prosecution was set into motion against the accused on the complaint of 10 S.C.No.825/2014 C.W.1, Smt.Bhagyamma, the mother of the deceased, registered the case against the accused as per Cr.No.220/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide by subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty instigating her to die and thereby the accused committed the offence as alleged, is the case of the prosecution.
14. The legal position assigned for the offence falling under Section 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code has to be looked into. Bearing in mind the above said legal position, I have perused the evidence on record to find out whether the prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the accused.
15. On going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution witness, it reveals that P.W.1 is complainant, 11 S.C.No.825/2014 one Smt. Bhagyamma, who is the mother of the deceased divya. She states that C.W.9, 11 and 12 are her children. That the deceased divya is her 6th daughter. That the deceased and the accused are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized at Dharmastala, later there was reception at shivasagar hotel at double road. That they were staying in a rented house in Girinagara. That whenever her daughter came home, she was crying. That the accused was forcing her to bring money from her parents house. That the witness had borrowed from her relatives and given the accused about four and a half lakh. But even then the accused did not take care of her. Later they started to stay at vijayanagara and then at Kamashipalaya and later at Dasarahalli. That later she came to know about the death of the deceased and they went and saw that her daughter had hanged and committed suicide. That she gave the complaint, which is marked as Ex.P.1 and the witness signature is marked as Ex.P.1(a). That the police had drawn the mahazar and the dead body of the deceased was sent to Victoria hospital. 12 S.C.No.825/2014 That the accused was not paying the rent of the house and also he was not doing any work.
16. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, she admitted the suggestion that the marriage of the deceased with the accused is an inter-caste marriage. That in there family there was no inter-caste marriage. This witness admitted that there was opposition by the family members for the inter-caste marriage. That the accused belonged to scheduled caste is admitted by the witness. That the mother of the witness by name Paapamma, was taking care of her and was fostering her. That the deceased was telling the matters of her life with the mother of the witness. That the house of the deceased from Dasarahalli to her house was about 7 to 8 kilometers far. That the witness is working as maid and earning around Rs.1,500/-. That she spends the money on her daughter's and grandchildren. That she works for 2 hours in the house of other people. That she has taken loan from Suguna, Mahesh, Amool, Ramanna, Jagga, Ravikumar and Paapamma. That her mother had given her younger 13 S.C.No.825/2014 sisiter's golden chain and ear rings to the deceased. That the same is not mentioned in the complaint. That the people who gave loan were calling her on phone and asking her repay the loan. That no body had given her any trouble. That she came to know about the death of the daughter at about 10.30 a.m and at about 11.00 a.m they came near the house of the accused. That about 1.30 p.m they went to the police station and the police wrote down what she told them. That she has signed in the complaint and that the police have not inserted anything other than she told them in the complaint. That she did not get the complaint read out about the matter in it. That who wrote the complaint exactly is not know to her. That she has not given any complaint against this accused prior to this complaint. That the deceased has not given any complaint against the accused to the police. That the accused would not consume alcohol and smoke that she would come to know. That the marriage of the deceased and the accused was a love marriage. That the marriage relationship between the two was not at all 14 S.C.No.825/2014 cordial. That whenever she went to the house of the accused, her daughter would be sad. That there were injuries on the body of the deceased. That there was wound on the cheek. That in order to reach the house of the accused, she taken around one hour time. That before she could reach, the neighbors had already informed the police. This witness has denied other suggestion put to her by the defense counsel.
17. On considering the papers on record and the evidence adduced by P.W.1, it is relevant to note that as extracted from the deposition, "ಸಸಗಸಣ, ಮಹಹಶ, ಅಮಸಲ, ರಮಣಣ, ಜಗಗ, ರವಕಸಮರ, ಪಪಮ ಮ ಇವರರದ ಸಲ ಪಡದದವ."
Further that:
"ದದರನಲರಸವ ವಷಯಗಳನಸ ನ ನನಸ ಒದ ಲ ತಳದಸಕದರಡಲ. ಸಕಯಸ ಪನನ ಹಹಳಸತತಳ ದದರನಸ ನ ಯರಸ ಬರದರಸ ಅನಸ ನ ವದಸ ನನಗ ನಖರವಗ ಗದತತಲಲ.
ಈ ಫಟನಗರತ ಮಸರಚ ನನಸ ಪಹಲಸರಗ ಆರದಹಪಯ ವರಸದದ ಯವದಹ ದದರಸ ಕದಟಟಲಲ. ನನನ ಮಗಳಸ ಆರದಹಪಯಸ ಅವಳಗ ಕರಸಕಸಳ ಕದಡಸತತದದ ಬಗಗ ಯವದಹ ದದರನಸ ನ ಪಲಹಸರಗ ಕದಟಟಲಲ."
The reading of the complaint reveals that the complainant had given around four and a half lakh to the 15 S.C.No.825/2014 accused and also that accused was not doing any work and deceased was working. P.W.1, being the complainant and mother of the deceased Divya, has also stated that whenever her daughter came home, she was crying. Also that P.W.1 had borrowed from her relatives and given the accused about four and a half lakh. That she has taken loan from Suguna, Mahesh, Amool, Ramanna, Jagga, Ravikumar and Paapamma. None of these persons are made as witness in this case to substantiate their say of P.W1. Further, there are no document to show the loan transaction was made by her for an amount of four and a half lakh. Further her mother had given her younger sister's golden chain and ear rings to the deceased and the same is not mentioned in the complaint, goes to show that the version of this witness cannot be believed in toto unless supported by other material witness. Further the witness during the cross-examination states that she did not get the complaint read out from the writer and prior to this complaint there was no other complaint registered against this accused by the complainant or the deceased, 16 S.C.No.825/2014 also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. Further there are no documents, to show the monetary transaction between the accused and the deceased or the complainant and the accused, to support the case of the prosecution. The men's-rea for driving the deceased to commit suicide has to established by the evidence of the material witness and corroborated. Hence, the evidence of the complainant has to be corroborated with the evidence of the other material witnesses to prove the charges framed against the accused and the abatement of the accused has to be proved to establish the case of the prosecution.
18. Further, the spot pancha witness is examined is P.W.8, who is C.W.3, one by name Lokesh. He worked in garage and he states that from last 20 years he is residing at Kamakshipalya. That Kamakshipalya police have not called him to do mahazar and no mahazar has been made in his presence. That he identified the signature on the spot mahazar which is marked as Ex.P5 and his signature as Ex.P5(a). That he does not know 17 S.C.No.825/2014 what is written in panchanama and stated that 2 years ago when he visited the police station he had signed. This witness turned hostile and at this juncture the Learned Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine this witness. This witness has denied the suggestion put to him by the Learned Public Prosecutor. Hence the only one spot pancha witness, who was examined by the prosecution, has turned hostile and not at all supported the case of the prosecution. This witness was not of any help to the prosecution.
19. Further, Inquest panchanama witnesses are PW.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.7. Among them, P.W.2 is C.W.6, one by name Prabhakar, who is working as coolie. He states that on 03.04.2014 the dead body of deceased was kept in the Victoria Hospital mortuary, at that time the police have taken his signature and another person has also signed in the panchanama. That the said panchanama is marked as Ex.P.2 and the signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P.2(a). That there was a wound near the neck of the deceased.
18 S.C.No.825/2014
20. During the cross-examination he states that the mother of the deceased is residing in his neighbor. That the police have not given any written notice. That he is the native of mysore. That he works in a place called Adugodi. That he works in shifts from afternoon 2.00 to night 10.00p.m. That he has signed the panchanama at the time of inquest and has not read the panchanama. That police asked him to sign on the pachanama and he has signed. That he has not observed the jewels on the body and does not know to which direction dead body was placed. That the said panchanama is marked as Ex.P.2 and police has taken his signature and another person. That other than wound near the neck of the deceased, he has not observed any other wound. That he has signed the inquest at the time of inquest and has not read it. On considering the evidence of P.W.2, although the witness has signed the inquest, he stating that he has not read it, creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further, because the police told him to sing he has signed also creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. 19 S.C.No.825/2014
21. Another inquest pancha is P.W.3, who is C.W 7, one by name Manjula, who is sister of the deceased who has given the statement to the thasildaar during the inquest. She states that accused is her deceased sister's husband. That the marriage of the accused and deceased took place at Dharmasthala on 31.05.2010 and were staying in Girinagar. That after the marriage accused used to harass the deceased to get money from her parents house and the mother and brother of the deceased had taken loan and given to the accused. That accused and the deceased has personally gone and collected the amount from Suguna and her sister. That accused used to harass the deceased stating that after marrying her he lost everything and to go and die. That accused was not going to work properly and was not providing basic necessities to the family or paying rent and hence accused and deceased used to take loan from others. That the deceased used to tell everything to the witness through telephone and when deceased visited 20 S.C.No.825/2014 their house. That on 01.05.2014 the deceased hanged herself in the house of the accused and the deceased brother Venkatesh informed the same to the witness. That when witness and her husband went to the place, accused was there at home and the deceased had hanged herself with a veil and the same has been told in front of Thasildar.
22. During the cross-examination of P.W.3, she states that the house of the accused is 2 to 3 kilometers far from her house and if traveled in vehicle, one could reach the accused's house in 15 to 20 minutes. That her deceased sister and accused were in love with each other for 1 to 2 years and later got inter-caste marriage. That she has not given any document related to their marriage to the I.O. That the deceased and accused stayed at rented house for about 7 months in Vijaynagar and later at Dasarahalli where the deceased committed suicide. That the accused used to harass the deceased and there was no complaint given against him to the police. That the witness was working on contract basis as computer 21 S.C.No.825/2014 operator and working hours was from 10.00 a.m to 5.30 p.m. That the accused and the deceased have made loans nearly 4 to 5 lakhs. That they might have received amount of Rs.2,25,000/- from Suguna, Rs.75,000/- from Amala. That the mother of the witness and aunty has given gold ornaments, her grandmother has given Rs.50,000/- along with one pair earrings to the deceased and the accused. That the persons who had given money used to telephone the deceased and ask for amount and the deceased used to take time to return the said amount. That the deceased used to discuss everything with her grandmother. That the brother of this witness informed at 11.00 a.m and she came with her husband at 11.15 to the house of the accused. That the police took accused and this witness statement has been recorded at Victoria hospital. That this witness denied all other suggestions put to her by the defense counsel.
23. On considering the papers on record and the evidence adduced by P.W.3, it is relevant to note that as extracted from the deposition, 22 S.C.No.825/2014 " ಆರದಹಪ ಮತಸತ ನನನ ತರಗ ತಗದಸಕದರಡರಸವ ಸಲ ಅರದಜಸ 4-5 ಲಕ ಆಗರಬಹಸದಸ. ಸಸಗಸಣ ಇವಳಸ 2,25,000/- ಸಲ ಕದಟಟ ರಬಹಸದಸ, ಅಮಲ ಇವಳಸ 75,000/- ಸಲವನಸ ನ ಆರದಹಪಗ ಕದಟಟರಬಹಸದಸ.
further that:
"ಸಲ ಕದಟಟವರಸ ದವವ ಇವಳಗ ಫಹನ ಮಡ ಸಲವನಸ ನ ಮರಸಪವತ ಮಡಸವರತ ಕಹಳಸತತದದರಸ. ಸಲ ಮರಸಪವತ ಮಡದ ಕರಣದರದ ನನನ ತರಗ ಮನಸಸ ಗ ನದಹವಗತಸತ. ನನನ ತರಗ ಅವಳಗಹನದರದ ಕಷಟ ಆದರ ನನನ ಅಜಜಯ ಹತತರ ಹಹಳಸತತದದಳಸ.
On considering the depositions of P.W.3, who is the sister, she states that the deceased had made loan and the people who gave loan were asking her to repay the same and deceased used to take time to repay. Whereas the mother of the deceased who is P.W.1 has mentioned in her deposition that people who gave loan to deceased, no body had given her any trouble. The deposition of the P.W.1 and P.W.3 are not same. Further, P.W.3 mentioning that due to the reason of repayment of loan the deceased was upset has to be considered here. Although there is loan made by and the people were telephoning the deceased to return it, now the question is whether the 23 S.C.No.825/2014 accused had abetted the same and what is the role of this accused in the abatement to commit suicide.
24. Further another inquest pancha is P.W.4, who is C.W.4, one by name Vajramuni residing at Tilaknagara. He is the House owner, he states that the deceased and the accused were staying as tenant in his building. That nearly one year back the police have taken the signature of his and another person on the inquest, in Victoria Hospital mortuary and the said panchanama is marked as Ex.P.2 and the signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P.2(b). He states that there was a wound near the neck of the deceased.
25. During the cross-examination of P.W.4, he states that he stays at Bannerghatta, SRK Garden, he goes to work at 6.00a.m and return home at 9 or 10.00p.m. That the police have not given any written notice to attend panchanama. That he denied that police has not done panchanama in front of him. That he was informed that the deceased had committed suicide and he 24 S.C.No.825/2014 has signed the panchanama. This witness denied other suggestion put to him by the defence counsel. On considering the depositions of this witness and the inquest, An inquest is an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding a death. This witness was again not of much help to the case of the Prosecution, as nothing much incriminating was elicited by the mouth of this witness.
26. Further P.W.7, who is C.W.15, one by name Gopalaswamy. He is the Retired Thasildaar who has conducted the inquest proceedings. He states that from 30.09.2013, he is working as Special Thasildar, Bangalore North Taluk. That on 01.05.2014 he received request letter to inquest the body of the deceased Divya, W/o Mahesh, from Kamakshipalya Police Station. That the request letter has been marked as Ex.P4 and the signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P4(a). That he conducted the inquest at Victoria Hospital on 02.05.2014 from 9.00 to 11.30a.m in front of witnesses Vajramuni, E.Mahesh and P.Prabhakar. That during the inquest it 25 S.C.No.825/2014 was found that there was nearly 9 inch ligature mark on the neck of the deceased from left ear to right ear. That during the inquest, P.W.3, Manjula has given statement to this witness that due to the dowry harassment by the accused the deceased had committed suicide. That Inquest report has been marked as Ex.P2 and signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P2(c).
27. During the cross-examination of P.W.7, he has stated that he does not know the color of the ligature mark but the ligature mark was 1 ½ to 2 inch in width. That during the inquest the relatives of the deceased were present and he has not recorded the statements of other relatives of the deceased, as there was no necessity for the same. He stated that the head of the deceased was placed towards the east and legs towards the west. This witness stated that he cannot mention the check-bandi of the place of inquest. Further, that there were no other marks found on the body and also there were no ornaments on the body. That he conducted the inquest at Victoria hospital from 9.00 to 11.30p.m. That he does not know 26 S.C.No.825/2014 who has sent the Ex.P4, requisition letter and he has received Ex.P4 after signing. The witness denied the suggestion that he has not gone to victoria hospital and conducted inquest as per Ex.P2 and denied other suggestion put by the defense counsel. He stated that he does not remember which type of cloth was there on the body of the deceased. That the deceased was of dark complexion and tongue was protruding out. That the photos of the dead body was not taken because he did not find it necessary. On considering the depositions of P.W7 and the relevant papers on record, it goes to show that he is the Thashidaar, who has conducted the inquest proceeding. This witness stated that he cannot mention the check-bandi of the place of inquest. Further, that there were no other marks found on the body and also there were no ornaments on the body. He stated that he does not remember which type of cloth was there on the body of the deceased can be noted here. Further, it is relevant to note that the evidence of public servants cannot be disbelieved that they are interested in the 27 S.C.No.825/2014 success of the prosecution. But based only on the evidence of this witness alone, the guilt of the accused cannot be concluded.
28. Other witnesses are P.W.5, P.W.6. Among them, P.W.5 is C.W.9, one by name Venkatesh. He is the brother of the deceased and states that P.W.1 is his mother and P.W.8 is his brother and accused is the husband of his deceased sister Divya. That the marriage of the accused and deceased took place at Dharmasthala on 31.05.2010 and were staying at Girinagar and now at Dasarahalli. That accused was not working anywhere and used to harass his deceased sister. That accused used to send the deceased to her parents house to get money every month. That accused was not providing basic necessities to the family, paying rent. That on 01.05.2014 at 11.30 a.m accused telephoned witness and informed that deceased hanged herself. That when witness visited that house of the accused his sister had committed suicide by hanging herself.
28 S.C.No.825/2014
29. During the cross-examination P.W5, he states that he works at BTM Layout and his work is from 9.30a.m to evening 5.30p.m. That after the marriage the deceased and the accused were staying in Girinagar for 6 months and 3 years at Dasarahalli. That he does not know whether his deceased sister had filed maintenance case against the accused. That the accused had told this witness that he was working at Tours and Travels and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. That when he visited the deceased house at 11.30a.m the accused was present in the house and was talking to someone on the mobile. That the police came and took the accused on the complaint of the house owner. Further that the deceased had informed this witness about the harassment given to her and the same has been told in front of the police. That the deceased and the accused are of different caste and this witness does not know how many years they were in love before marriage. That the accused and deceased have visited the house of the witness nearly 20 times. Further he denied all other suggestions put to him. 29 S.C.No.825/2014
30. On considering the papers on record and the evidence adduced by P.W.5, it is relevant to note that as extracted from the deposition, "ಆರದಹಪಯಸ ಟದರಸ ಮತಸತ ಟಟವಹವಸನಲ ಕಲಸ ಮಡಸತತದದ.
ಪಹಲಸರಸ ಘಟನ ಸದಳಕಕ ಬರದಸ ಆರದಹಪಯನಸ ನ
ಕರದಸಕದರಡಸ ಹದಹದರಸ. ಮನಯ ಮಲಹಕ
ಪಹಲಸರಗ ದದರಸ ಕದಟಟದದ."
Further that,
"ನನನ ತರಗ ದವವ ಚಕಕವಳಗನರದ ಅವಳ ಅಜಜಯ ಮನಯಲ
ಬಳದದದಳಸ. ಆಕಯಸ ಎಲ ಲ ವಷಯಗಳನಸ ನ ತನನ ಅಜಜಯ
ಹತತರ ಹಹಳಸತತದದಳಸ. ಅದಹ ರಹತ ಅಜಜಗದ ಸಹ ದವವಳ ಮಹಲ ಪಟಹತ ಇತಸತ."
This witness stating that the deceased was close to the grandmother and she was telling everything to her but grandmother is not made witness by witness, creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further, the evidence of this witness has to be corroborated with the evidence of other witnesses. Nothing much incriminating was elicited by the mouth of this witness.
31. Further, P.W.6 is C.W.14, one by name Ramappa. Who is the house owner and resides in 30 S.C.No.825/2014 Dasarahalli. He states that his house is at Dasarahalli and has given 4 houses for rent. That the accused and his deceased wife were staying on the first floor of his building for 3 to 4 months. That he does not know about the relationship between the accused and the deceased and does not know the reason for the deceased to commit suicide and has not given any statement in front of the police. This witness turned hostile and at this juncture Learned Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross- examine this witness. This witness has denied the suggestion put to him by the Learned Public Prosecutor. On considering the deposition of this witness and the statement, it goes to show that he has not deposed anything as per the statement and turned hostile thereby benefiting the accused on the other hand. Further, he being an independent witness and also the house owner, has not at all supported the case of the prosecution. This witness was not of much help to the prosecution.
32. Further, Police witnesses are P.W.9 and P.W.10. Among them P.W.9 is C.W.17, one by name Rajanna. He 31 S.C.No.825/2014 is working as Head Constable. He states that he is working in Kamakshipalya Police station since 4 years. That on 02.05.2014 in Kamakshipalya Crime No.220/2014, on the order of the I.O he has taken the dead body of the deceased to Victoria hospital and got done the post mortem and later handed over the dead body to the brother of the deceased and collected the acknowledgment.
33. During the cross-examination this witness has stated that there was ligature mark around the neck and he does not know the measurement of the same. Nothing much incriminating was elicited by the mouth of this witness. Hence, it cannot be said that the charges framed on the accused can be proved by the evidence of this witness alone.
34. Further, the Investigating Officer is P.W.10, who is C.W.19, one by name Boraiah D.B. He states that he was working as SI at Kamakshipalya Police Station during the year 2014 to May 2015. That on 01.05.2014, he received complaint from P.W.1. That he filed registered 32 S.C.No.825/2014 the complaint u/s.306 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.220/2014. That the said complaint is marked as Ex.P1 and his signature as Ex.P1(b). FIR is at Ex.P6 and the signature is marked as Ex.P6(a). That when he visited the spot, P.W.1 was present there and he drew pachanama in the presence of panchas which is at Ex.P5 and his signature is at Ex.P5(b). That he sent requisition to the Thasildaar and the dead body was sent to victoria hospital. That later after conducting the inquest and post mortem the body was handed over to the family. The saree used to commit suicide was red and cement colour and the same was handed over by P.W.9 and the same is inserted in P.F.No.95/2014. That the said P.F is marked as Ex.P7. That the accused was arrested on 02.05.2014 and produced before the Hon'ble court. That on 02.05.2014 C.W.13, 14, 8, 9, 10, 11 &12 statements were recorded. That on 20.05.2014 P.C. 6408 brought post mortem report which is at Ex.P8 and Ex.P8(a) is witness signature. That the saree used by the deceased Divya is marked as M.O.1 and the marriage invitation is marked as 33 S.C.No.825/2014 Ex.P9, Ex.P10 & Ex.P11 are photographs. That after completion of the investigation he has submitted the charge sheet.
35. During the cross-examination, P.W.10 states that he has not taken women PC during the panchanama. But at the time of panchanama women PC was not at that spot. That women PC by name Smt.Rekha Devi is working in his concerned police station. That during the panchanama women constable was present. That her signature is not taken on the panchanama and he had no hindrance to take her signature. That the said women PC is not shown as witness in the charge sheet. Witness states that the complaint was written by the complainant. That he did not come to know what work the deceased was doing and he did not investigate in that regard. The witness admitted the suggestion that in the complaint and marriage invitation card the places shown is different. To the suggestion put by the defence counsel witness states he does not know whether the dates are also shown different. That he has not issued any notice to Dinesh 34 S.C.No.825/2014 and Lokesh before going to spot mahazar in order to do the spot mahazar. That the witnesses were present at the spot. That he had taken the photographer to take the photos. That he does not remember the color of the bed. That he has called the witnesses to the station and taken the statement and they all were called on the same day. This witness denied other suggestions put to him. That the deceased has used saree to commit suicide but he cannot say the measurement and he has not mentioned it. That he cannot say who got the dead body down. The witness admitted the suggestion that after detaching the dead body, saree was cut into two pieces and the same is produced. That he has not mentioned the measurement of the two pieces of the saree which was cut. That no photographs were taken after the body was detached from the hanging position. This witness admitted the suggestion that the photographer is not made a witness. The witness admitted the suggestion that as per law the photographer has to made a witness but he was not made so. That he has mentioned that the private parts of the 35 S.C.No.825/2014 deceased were intact. That saree is usually 6 meters in length and not 9 meters. The saree measurement is not taken by him. This witness denied other suggestions put to him.
36. On considering the papers on record and the evidence adduced by P.W.10, it is relevant to note that as extracted from the deposition, "ಯವ ಕರಣಕಕ ಮಮತಳಸ ತಹರಕದರಡಳಸ ಎರಬಸದನಸ ನ ತಳದಸಕದಳಸಳ ವ ಸಲಸವಗ ಮಮತಳಸ ಯವ ಕಲಸ ಮಡಸತತದದಳಸ ಎರದಸ ನನಸ ತಳದಸಕದಳಳಬಹಕಗತಸತ ಎರದರ ಸರಯಲಲ."
"ಪರಚನಮ ಮಡಲಸ ನನಸ ಮಹಳ ಪಹದಯನಸ ನ ನನನ ಜದತ ಕರದಸಕದರಡಸ ಹದಹಗರಲಲಲ. ಸದರ ಪರಚನಮ ಮಡಸವಗ ಮಹಳ ಪಹದ ಹಜರದದರಸ ಎರದರ ನಜ."
Further that, ದ , " ಮಮತ ದವವ ಸಹರಯರದ ನಹಣಸ ಬಗದಸಕದರಡದಸ ಅದರ ಅಳತಯನಸ ನ ನನಸ ಹಹಳಲಸ ಆಗಸವದಲಲ ಮತಸತ ನ ನಮದದಸ ಮಡಲಲ ಎರದರ ಸರ."
ಅದನಸ
Further that,
"ಶವವನಸನ ನಹಣಸ ಬಗದ ಸಸತಯರದ ಸಹರಯನಸ ನ
ದ , ಅದರ ಎರಡದ ಭಗಗಳನಸ
ಕತತರಸ ಇಳಸದಸ ನ ಹಜರಸ
ಮಡದವ ಎರದರ ಸರ. ಕನದನಸ ಪ ಟಕರವಗ
ಫಹಟದಹ ನ ಸಕ ಮಡಬಹಕಗತಸತ, ಆದರ
ತಗದವರನಸ
36 S.C.No.825/2014
ಮಡಲಲ, ಅವರನಸ ನ ಸಕಯನನಗ ಮಡಲಸ ತದರದರ
ಇರಲಲಲ ಎರದರ ಸರ."
On considering the evidence of P.W.10, it is evident to note that, this witness being the Investigating Officer, has not at all investigated about what work deceased was doing, the evidence of public servants cannot be disbelieved that they are interested in the success of the prosecution. But based only on the evidence of this witness, the guilt of the accused persons cannot be concluded.
37. After closing of the prosecution side witness, the accused has entered the witness box and given his evidence. The defence witness is accused himself who is D.W.1 by name Mahesh. He states that he is working as a coolie. That the deceased Divya was his wife. That their marriage was a love marriage and inter-caste marriage and was solemnized on 30.5.2010 at Dharmastala. That the family members of the deceased did not come to the weeding as they did not like the same. That after the marriage he was residing at Vijayanagara. That they were 37 S.C.No.825/2014 living cordially. That the deceased was grown along with her grandmother Smt.Paapamma. That he has a boy born out of the marriage relationship. That he is earning what is sufficient to his life. That his wife had a desire to start a travelling agency. That because of which even when he rejected it, she had made loan from others. That the said traveling agency is in the name of the deceased as 'Divya Travels'. That there was no profit from the agency. The people who had given loan were pressurizing her to return the money, so the deceased was felling very sad. That the deceased was mentioning that she will not be alive. That he used to console her. That on the day of the death, there was naming ceremony of the son of accued and he had been to the shop to bring items. That when he came back, the door was closed and he had knocked. That on seeing from the window the deceased had hanged herself. That he informed the brother of the deceased by name Sunil. The permit of the traveling agency is marked as Ex.D.1. That the reason behind her death are the people who gave the loan and forcing her. That because he got 38 S.C.No.825/2014 inter-caste marriage and he belongs to scheduled caste, a false complaint has been lodged on him. That his son by name Chiranjeevi, is in his care. That he is not related to this case.
38. During the cross-examination of D.W.1 by the Learned Public Prosecutor, he states that he saw the deceased in one wedding of his friend and then they fell in love and later got married. That only one brother Sunil, had come to their wedding. That the parents of the deceased were not interested in this wedding. That he had told about his caste. That the deceased had made around three lakh loan for the traveling agency. That there was no profit out of it. That he was earning around twenty thousand income. That he used to give all the money to the deceased. This witness admitted the suggestion that he is not having the details of the loan made and no documents is given. That the deceased had made loan after the marriage with him. This witness admitted the suggestion that if any loan is to be made, deceased has to ask him and then do the loan. Further 39 S.C.No.825/2014 admitted that the deceased had told about the loan to the accused. That how much loan was told to him and he had said no to it. That how much profit would be earned was not told to me. This witness admitted the suggestion that if how much loan is made, how much profit is received is not known to him. That the deceased had told him that she will repay the loan amount and he need not worry about it. That when the people who gave the loan were asking the repayment, they had told that they will repay little by little. That when he would be in the house, the people who gave loan were calling the deceased on phone and harassing her. That other then him, no one has heard about the harassment given by the people over phone for repayment. That on the day of the incident, the naming ceremony of his son was scheduled. That the deceased had joy about the birth of the son. That the deceased had no any worry about the family matters. The witness admitted the suggestion that no witness had come to the court in order to say about the harassment given by 40 S.C.No.825/2014 the people who gave loan. This witness has denied other suggestions put to him by the Learned Public Prosecutor.
39. On considering the deposition and the relevant papers on record of D.W.1, it goes to show that he is the husband and accused in this case. Further that the deceased was running a 'traveling agency' which was in her name. The document Ex.D.1 which is Permit in respect of a contract carriage issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Bangaluru. It is in her name and is the permit to one motor cab with 5 passengers capacity issued on 26.5.2011, about three years prior to the death of the deceased. Further, he is not having the details of the loan made and no documents is given again raises doubt. The prosecution was not successful to elicite anything much incriminating in the case. The fact that no person who gave loan, is made a witness in this case raises doubt about the case of the prosecution.
40. Further the counsel for accused has produced decisions reported in:
41 S.C.No.825/2014
(a) In Crl.A.No.1567/2007 (Kantilal Martaji Pandor vs. State of Gujurat & Anr.
" She had decided to jump into the well leaving the child and accused behind, therefore the act of the suicide appears to be intentional act to get rid of the frequent insult, ignorance and exploitation."
The Hon'ble High Court in the present case has already held that the appellant was not guilty of abetting the suicide of the deceased and was therefore not guilty of the offense under Sec.306 Indian Penal Code.
This finding of the Hon'ble High Court was based on the evidence of the father, mother, sister and another relative of the deceased who deposed on the basis of inter alia. In this case there is no evidence of any physical harm having been caused by the appellant to the deceased nor any acts of mental cruelty committed by him. Hence the appellant cannot be held guilty of any cruelty within the meaning of clause (a) of the Explanation under Sec.498A Indian Penal Code. In the result, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court of and acquit the appellant of the charge under Sec.498A, IPC. Since the appellant is on bail, his bails bonds be discharged.
(b) In Crl.A.No.985/2004 (Atmaram vs. State of Maharashtra). Held:
42 S.C.No.825/2014
" She submitted that the post mortem report of the deceased purnabai does not show any injury on her body and it also shows that she had her meals. That the doctor had described purnabai as well nourished and the last meal appears to have been taken by her. Moreover the post-mortem examination report does not show that the purnabai was subjected to any severe beating before her death."
"Such a consequence from mental state of purnabai cannot be ground for holding that the appellant was guilty of cruelty within the meaning of clause(a) of the explanation to Sec.498A IPC. We therefore hold that the presumption under Sec.113A is not attracted and the appellant cannot also be held guilty of abetting the suicide of purnabai."
" The court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offense of suicide should be found guilty."43 S.C.No.825/2014
"For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the judgments of the trial court holding appellant guilty of the offences under Sec.306 and 498A, IPC and direct that the bail bonds executed by the appellant be discharged."
(c) In 2002 (3) SCR 376 (Giridhar Shankar Tawade vs. State of Maharashtra), held:
" This by itself would not bring home the charge under Sec.498A. Demand for dowry has not seen the light of the day."
But some cogent evidence is required to bring home the charge of Sec.498A as well without which the charge cannot be said to be maintained.
(d) In (Aravind Singh vs. State of Bihar), (Jaginder singh vs. State of Hariyana).
"That there is no sufficient evidence the dowry demand for less the evidence of cruelty available in record. No outside person has been called to give evidence. On the wake of the aforesaid, charge under Sec.498A also cannot be sustained. Both the learned trial Judge and the High Court are clearly wrong in not considering this aspect of the matter and thus fell into a serious and clear error. In that view of the matter the conviction and sentence stand set aside' 44 S.C.No.825/2014 The above decisions of their Lordships, with due respect to their Lordship, are in favour of this accused.
41. The Ex.P.8 is the post mortem report, it is evident that no other injuries are seen on the body of the deceased except the ligature mark and opinion of the Doctor, in the post mortem report mentions "Death was due to Asphyxia as a result of hanging". P.W.1 deposed that there were injuries on the body of the deceased and that there was wound on the cheek. But 45 S.C.No.825/2014 the Postmortem report does not mention it . Further the in the inquest P.W.7, the Thasildaar has not told any thing in this regard. P.W.2 and P.W.4 also mentioned same. Hence, the say of P.W.1 cannot be believed in toto. Further, that there are not other injury marks on the body of the deceased is taken note of which goes to show that there were no physical harm being caused to the deceased. So the prosecution has to prove the abatement of the accused in this case and the ill treatment meted to the deceased by the accused. Hence, entire material of the prosecution has to be considered and to prove the charges laid against the accused as per section 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. Based only on the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.8, who are family members of the deceased, mother, sister and brothers, the conclusion cannot be drawn for the charges levied against the accused. P.W.1 deposed around four and a half lakh was given to the accused and that he was not doing any work and deceased was working, But the Investigating Officer, has not shone any progress in this area during the 46 S.C.No.825/2014 investigation and deposed the same during the cross- examination. Further, without the documentary evidence available about the loan transaction and nor any person who gave loan examined by the prosecution, it creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. P.W.8 who is the spot pancha witness, the only one spot pancha witness examined by the prosecution has turned hostile and not at all supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.2 who is the inquest panchanama witness, deposed that though he as signed the panchanama, he has not read the same and police asked him to sign so he signed, this again raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. P.W.3 who is the sister deposed that accused used to harass the deceased and there was no complaint given against him to police is taken note of. Further P.W.3 deposed that accused and deceased might have received an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- from Suguna and Rs.75,000/- from Amala, shows that she is not sure of it. Further without any documentary or any witness who gave loan being examined, it creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. 47 S.C.No.825/2014 Further, P.W.3 deposed that deceased used to discuss everything with her grandmother, and the said grandmother not being examined, creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. It can be noted that P.W.6, who is house owner, an independent witness, has turned hostile and deposed that he does not know about the relationship between the accused and the deceased, further, he does not know the reason the deceased committed suicide, this also creates doubt on the version of the prosecution. P.W.10 who is the Investigating Officer, has deposed that in the complaint and the marriage invitation card the places show is different. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 the maternal family members of the deceased deposed that the marriage of the deceased with the accused was arranged on 31.5.2010. But on perusal of Ex.P. 9 the marriage was held on 30.5.2010 and D.W.1 has mentioned it correct. The spot mahajar witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is evident to note that the spot panchanama which is at Ex.P.5 is not supported by the Mahazar witness. But the say of the 48 S.C.No.825/2014 witness has to be corroborated to the evidence adduced by other witness. Here in this case the prosecution was not successful to establish the charges framed against the accused. The ingredient of section 498A and 306 of I.P.C are not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus it is clear that the P.W.1, who is mother of the deceased, only suspected about the accused that the deceased would have committed suicide due to ill-treated by the accused. Therefore, on considering the entire evidence and papers on record, there is absolutely no material against the accused to prove that the accused subjected the deceased to any kind of ill-treatment and harassment and thereby due to any such ill-treatment and the harassment, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, the question of accused abetting the deceased to commit suicide does not arise. Moreover, prosecution is not able to explain why pancha witness P.W.8 and independent witness/house owner P.W.6 have turned hostile. P.W.1 being mother of the deceased, without the support of any evidence of independent witnesses, the 49 S.C.No.825/2014 evidence of P.W.1 does not merit consideration as the P.W.6 and P.W.8 have turned hostile. There is absolutely no material forthcoming in the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.7 to prove the inquest which is at Ex.P.2. More over the Inquest panchanama at Ex.P.2 is not supported by any of the independent witnesses. None of the independent witness have given their evidence in favour of the prosecution and in turn supported the accused to get the benefit of doubt. P.W.7 and 10 are the official witness and based only on the evidence of this witness alone, charges cannot be proved.
42. Hence, from the discussion made herein above, the Investigation Officer has not gone ahead to show what progress was made with regard to the investigation in identifying persons who had given the loan to the deceased. Further he has not made the investigation about what work the deceased was doing prior to her death. This raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further the document Ex.D.1, which is the produced by 50 S.C.No.825/2014 the defense counsel goes to show that there was a motor cab permit availed by the deceased. But, this aspect was dropped by the Investigating Officer during the investigation as admitted by him during the cross- examination. The depositions of P.W.2, 4, 6, 7, 9 do not bring out anything much incriminating against the accused. The say of the witness has to be corroborated to the evidence adduced by other witness. Here in this case the prosecution was not successful to establish the charges framed against the accused under section 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. Even the owner of the house, has turned hostile and not adduced in the favour of the prosecution. The ingredient of section 498A and 306 of I.P.C are not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, that the accused abetted the commission of suicide. The fact that the marriage of the deceased and the accused was a result of love and was inter-caste marriage is admitted by witness and the accused. And the fact that none of the family members of the deceased attended the wedding, shows that all was 51 S.C.No.825/2014 not right in the relationship of the deceased family and the accused during the marriage. The independent witnesses have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The inquest panchanama at Ex.P.2 and the spot mahazar at Ex.P.5 are not proved by the prosecution by examination of the concerned witnesses. Only on the basis of evidence of Investigating Officer, P.W.10, no case can be made out against the accused for the offence charged. Therefore, doubt arises regarding the case alleged against the accused. It is well settled principle of law that the accused is entitled to the benefit of such doubt. Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused subjected the deceased to any physical and mental harassment or cruelty and that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove point No.1and 2, and therefore, the point No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
43. Point No.3: From the discussion made herein above, it is clear that the accused deserves to be acquitted 52 S.C.No.825/2014 of the offence charged against him in this case. In the result, therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
OR D E R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. The bail bond executed by the accused and the surety bond shall stand canceled.
The property/saree at M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period as it is worthless.
(Dictated to Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 4th day of September, 2020) (Smt. SANDHYA S.) LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-72) ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Bhagyamma
P.W.2 : Prabhakar
P.W.3 : Manjula
P.W.4 : Vajramuni
P.W.5 : Venkatesh
53 S.C.No.825/2014
P.W.6 : Ramappa
P.W.7 : Gopalaswamy
P.W.8 : Lokesh
P.W.9 : Rajanna
P.W.10 : Boraiah D.B
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a & b) : Signatures of witness
Ex.P.2 : Death investigation report
Ex.P.2(a,b & c) : Signatures of witnesses Ex.P.3 : Statement of Ramappa Ex.P.4 : Request letter Ex.P.5 : Panchanama Ex.P5(a & b) : Signatures of the witnesses Ex.P.6 : FIR Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of the witness Ex.P.7 : Property list Ex.P.8 : Postmortem report Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of witness Ex.P.9 : Marriage Invitation Card Ex.P.10& 11 : Photos List of Witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
D.W.1 - Mahesh 54 S.C.No.825/2014 List of Documents exhibited on behalf of accused:
Ex.D.1 - Permit in respect of a contract Carriage.
List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:
M.O.1 - Saree.
(Smt. SANDHYA S.) LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-72).