Bangalore District Court
State By The Police SubInspector vs Shwetha W/O. Raju F.K on 12 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF LVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
(CCH58)
Present:
Smt. K.G.Shanthi, B.Com, LL.M.,
LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
: S.C.No.161/2017 :
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2021.
Complainant: State by the Police SubInspector,
Ramamurthynagar Police Station,
Bangalore.
(By Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused: Shwetha W/o. Raju F.K.,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at. No.68/69,
Site No.04, 8th Cross,
Malappanahatti village & post,
Chithradurga.
(Repted. by Sri.B.N.Sunil Kumar, Adv.)
TABULATION OF THE EVENTS
1. Date of Commission of offence: 07.11.2015
2. Date of report of offence : 07.11.2015
3. Name of the complainant : F.K. Havanoor
4. Nature of offence complained : U/Sec.306 of IPC
5. Date of commencement of
recording evidence : 22.05.2018
2
S.C. No.161/2017
6. Date of closing of recording of
evidence : 10.12.2020
7. Date of judgment: : 12.10.2021
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused is acquitted
9. Duration of the case : Year/s Moth/s Day/s
04 11 05
*********
JUDGMENT
The Ramamurthy Nagar Police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/Ss. 306 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case is that, the accused married to one Raju S/o. F.K.Havanur on 21.11.2012, since then the accused quarreling with her husband Raju for silly reason and abusing him in filthy language in the presence of relatives and insulting him and harassed him without any fault. So, on 07.11.2015 in between 430 to 630 p.m. husband of the accused committed suicide by hanging in his residence within the jurisdiction of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station.
3
S.C. No.161/2017
3. In this regard, the father of the deceased lodged a complaint to the Police on 07.11.2015 at 23:10 hours. The police on receipt of complaint registered the FIR against this accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.306 IPC and proceeded with the investigation.
4. During the course of investigation Police have recorded the statement of CW1 to CW22.
5. The Police have visited the spot and drawn the spot mahazar and taken steps to conduct the Postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. Inquest Mahazar conducted in the presence of panchas. Further statement of complainant and other witnesses recorded. Then on completion of investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.306 IPC.
6. On filing of the charge sheet the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and in turn the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore made over this case to this 4 S.C. No.161/2017 court for trial. On receiving record summons has been issued to the accused. Accused was on bail and appeared before this court through her Advocate and furnished surety for her appearance before the court for trial.
7. Heard before charge. Since there are primafacie material to frame charge against accused, charges framed, read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
8. In order to establish the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined PW1 to PW16 and got marked the documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and material objects M.O.1 and 2 marked. Defence side got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.15.
9. After completing the evidence of the prosecution, Statement of accused u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C recorded. All the incriminating evidence have been read over and explained to the accused and she denied all the incriminating evidence. The accused filed written statement U/Sec. 313(5) Cr.P.C.
5
S.C. No.161/2017
10. Heard arguments.
11. The points arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the marriage of the accused and deceased solemnized on 21.11.2012 and since the date of marriage the accused abused her husband in filthy language in the presence of relatives and insulted him and harassed him by which on 07.11.2015 in between 430 to 630 p.m. Raju committed suicide and the accused abated her husband Raju to commit suicide and thereby accused committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 306 of IPC?
2. What order?
12. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : As per the final order for
the following:
REASONS
13. Point No.1: It is definite case of the prosecution that, the accused being wife of the deceased used to abuse 6 S.C. No.161/2017 her husband in filthy language, calling him in singular and insulting him in the presence of relatives, by which Raju was fully disturbed and committed suicide on 07.11.2015 between 400 to 630 p.m. and this accused abetted her husband to commit suicide.
14. In order to establish the case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW16. PW1 who is complainant and father of the deceased. In his evidence he deposed that the deceased Raju is his son and his marriage solemnized with the accused on 21.11.2012. He deposed that from the first day of marriage itself, the accused quarreled with him and it continued for 8 to 10 days. This fact is informed to the parents of the accused and every one advised to the accused to change her attitude and lead a good marital life with her husband. But she has not changed her nature. On the other hand, she continued her earlier attitude and she went to her parents house and not returned for 8 to 9 months.
7
S.C. No.161/2017
15. Later her parents brought the accused to the matrimonial house. Inspite of advice the accused has not changed her behavior and picked up a quarrel with her motherinlaw and brotherinlaw and taken the mobile of her motherinlaw to the room and thrown the SIM. So, it is informed to the neighbour CW5 Suresh Kumar through phone. Suresh Kumar came to the house and advised to the accused, but the accused also abused to Suresh Kumar. On the evening when the husband of the accused returned to house and on coming to know about the incident, he also advised to his wife, but she has not cared and then she left her husband's house. In the month of September 2014, again she returned to the matrimonial house and stayed for 15 days and started to harass every one.
16. In his evidence he deposed that at the instance of the accused his son set up a separate rented house at Vijinapura and started to live therein along with accused. This witness deposed that he came to know that accused abusing her husband and giving threat that, he will be sent 8 S.C. No.161/2017 to jail. This witness deposed that on 06.11.2015 his son came to his house, but not taken breakfast and he was looking sorrow. He brought the coupon to purchase the saree to his wife. Then he returned to his house. PW1 deposed that on 07.11.2015 at 730 p.m. he received a information from Koshish Hospital that his son died. He deposed that he came to know that his son committed suicide by hanging and this accused is the cause for the death of his son. In this regard he lodged a complaint to the Police as per Ex.P.1. He deposed that on 08.11.2015 at 400 p.m. Police have drawn the mahazar in the house to deceased Raju as per Ex.P.2 in the presence of Hanumanthappa, Ningawwa. The signature is marked as Ex.P.2(a). He deposed that inquest mahazar on the dead body of his son conducted at Ambedkar Hospital, by that time he himself, Basavaraju and Rajanna were present and have given a statement before the Police.
17. PW2 is the brother of the deceased deposed that accused is his sisterinlaw and after her marriage with 9 S.C. No.161/2017 Raju she was in the habit of visiting her parents on and often and in the month of February 2015 she shifted her residence and started to stay along with her husband in a separate house. She used to give threat to her husband saying that she will send him to the jail. He also deposed that on 06.11.2015 Raju came to residence and then returned without taking breakfast. He deposed that on 07.11.2015 he came across that his brother Raju committed suicide by hanging. This witness is also deposed that since the accused harassed her husband, hence he committed suicide.
18. PW3 is the mother of the deceased Raju deposed that she was having two sons and her son Raju married the accused on 21.11.2012. After the marriage all of them were residing in a house situated at Hennur Cross. Further deposed that the accused had picked up a quarrel with her husband on the very next date of marriage itself. She had thrown the clothes. She further deposed that the accused was in the habit of regularly quarreling with her 10 S.C. No.161/2017 husband for silly reasons. In this regard it is informed to her parents and they also advised to the accused, but she has not changed her attitude and continued to leave the matrimonial house without any reason. She also deposed that accused had assaulted her husband with Chapathi Lattanige (roller). She deposed that her son had not led happy life with the accused. PW3 deposed that subsequently the accused and her husband shifted their residence to a separate house at Ramamurthy Nagar. She deposed that on 6.11.2015 her son came to the house and he was looking dull. That on 07.11.2015 at 745 p.m. she received a call from Koshish Hospital and came to know that her son Raju committed suicide by hanging. She deposed that the accused harassed her husband, by which he committed suicide.
19. PW4 is the neighbour of complainant deposed that the accused is wife of Raju. In his evidence he deposed that in the year 2012 the marriage of accused solemnized with Raju, but their marital relationship was not cordial. 11
S.C. No.161/2017 They used to pick up quarrel for silly reason and accused was calling her motherinlaw with disrespect by using singular words. He deposed that since the accused and her husband were quarreling, the complainant father asked the deceased to setup a separate house. Accordingly they shifted their residence. He deposed on 08.11.2015 he received a call from the complainant, then he visited Ambedkar Hospital and saw the dead body of the Raju and came to know that Raju committed suicide.
20. PW5 who is the cousin of the deceased deposed that in the year 2012 the marriage of the Raju solemnized with accused and they were cordial for two months. Later the accused used to pick up quarrel with her husband and also she used to quarrel with her fatherinlaw. She left the matrimonial house and stayed in her parents house for about 9 months. In this regard there was a panchayath and in the year 2015 deceased Raju and accused shifted for separate residence. She also deposed that on 07.11.2015 Raju committed suicide.
12
S.C. No.161/2017
21. PW6 is a family friend of complainant deposed that Raju married the accused in the year 2012. He further deposed that there were quarrel between them for silly reasons and he came to know this fact through the father of the deceased Raju. PW6 also deposed that in the month of February 2015 he called Raju, accused, complainant and his wife and advised to live cordially. After two months he came to know that complainant made an arrangement for a separate residence to accused and her husband. PW6 deposed that he could not meet Raju, but he came to know that he is leading good life with his wife. But on 07.11.2015 he came to know that Raju committed suicide by hanging.
22. PW7 is the cousin of the Raju. He deposed that the accused was the wife of Raju, who used to quarrel with her husband and inlaws. PW7 deposed that the accused and her husband had come to his house for house warming ceremony and even in the function quarreled each other. By that time he advised to the accused and her 13 S.C. No.161/2017 husband to lead a cordial life. He also deposed that about 6 years back husband of the accused committed suicide as the accused not changed her attitude towards her husband.
23. PW8 is the cousin of deceased Raju. He deposed that the accused is wife of Raju and she used to harass her husband. In the month of November 2015 Raju committed suicide. PW8 deposed that on coming to know the death of Raju he visited to Ambedkar Hospital and saw the dead body.
24. PW9 and PW10 are the mahazar witnesses deposed that Raju committed suicide in his house situated at Vijinapura and Police have visited the spot and drawn the mahazar. They also deposed that they attested the signature on the mahazar as per Ex.P.2(b) and 2(c).
25. PW11 is the Police Officer deposed that on 07.11.2015 at about 1110 p.m. when he was on SHO duty of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, he received the 14 S.C. No.161/2017 complaint and registered the FIR. Complaint marked as Ex.P.1 and signature of the witness marked as Ex.P.1(a). FIR is marked as Ex.P.4. Signature is marked as Ex.P.4(a).
26. PW12 is the Professor of Dr.Ambedkar Medical College. He deposed that on 09.11.2015 at the request of Ramamurthy Nagar Police, he conducted the Postmortem on the dead body of deceased Raju in between 930 to 1030 A.M. and issued Postmortem report as per Ex.P.5. He further deposed that he had given an opinion that the death was due to Asphyxia as a result of hanging.
27. PW13 is a cousin of deceased Raju. She deposed that the marriage of Raju and accused celebrated in the year 2015 at Chitradurga. She further deposed that she came to know that Raju and his wife were not cordial. About 4 to 5 years back Raju and his wife came to house warming ceremony of their relative, and on that day accused quarreled with her husband and thrown the mobile of her husband and called her husband as 'Nayi' (dog). She was insisting her husband to setup a separate 15 S.C. No.161/2017 house and she used to visit her parents house on and often. In this regard there was a panchayath, subsequently Raju and his wife started to reside in a rented house. But due to torture given by the accused, Raju committed suicide by hanging.
28. PW14 and PW15 are the inquest mahazar witnesses they deposed that they come across that the deceased Raju committed suicide due to unbearable torture given by his wife. The inquest mahazar marked as Ex.P.6. The signature of the witness marked as Ex.P.6(b) and 6(c).
29. PW16 was the Police officer, who conducted the investigation of the case and filed the charge sheet against the accused. He deposed that he was working as PSI of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station from February 2013 to March 2017. He received the records of Crime No. 647/2015 from ASI Krishnappa. On 08.11.2015 he visited Ambedkar Medical College and conducted the inquest panchanama as per Ex.P.6 in the presence of 16 S.C. No.161/2017 Mr.M.M.Kumar, Mr.Kanaiah and Mr.Kanthesh. Then he visited the house bearing No.1767/3 where the deceased committed suicide. He has drawn the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 in between 400 p.m to 530 p.m. and then recorded the further statement of complainant and recorded the statement of Basavaraju. On 09.11.2015 he seized the Chudidar and Dupatta and reported the same under PF.No.156/2015. Seized clothing are marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2. On 12.11.2015 he recorded the statement of the mother of the deceased Mallavva and also witness Ningappa. On 20.11.2015 he recorded the statement of CW6 to CW10. He further deposed that on 17.11.2015 he received the Postmortem report, on 16.12.2015 accused appeared before him along with Anticipatory bail, hence he released her by taking surety. On 19.01.2015 on completion of investigation filed a charge sheet against the accused.
30. Based on the above said evidence the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the marriage of the accused 17 S.C. No.161/2017 with the deceased Raju performed on 21.11.2012 and since the day one of marriage the accused used to give torture to her husband calling him in a singular and using offending words and insulting him publicly, so the said Raju suffered mental torture and on 07.11.2015 between 400 p.m. to 630 p.m. has committed suicide by hanging in his residence. It is argued that in order to prove the charge leveled against the accused the prosecution examined PW1 to PW16. It is argued that the parents and cousins of deceased Raju clearly deposed after the marriage, accused used to insult her husband in presence of friends and relatives by using offending words and she used to quarrel with her family members and has not given any respect to them. In this regard Raju suffered mentally and later Panchayath also held.
31. It is argued that the witnesses have deposed that after the marriage accused used to visit her parents house without on and often without reason. She was in the habit of leaving the matrimonial house for unknown 18 S.C. No.161/2017 reason. It is argued that not even single day after the marriage she kept her husband happy and due to unbearable mental torture given by accused, Raju committed suicide. It is argued that since the accused could not get adjusted in the matrimonial house. She herself and her husband were residing separately from their inlaws house. Inspite of that their living in a separate house, accused has not changed her behavior and attitude towards her husband and elders, which lead to mental agony for the husband of accused, so Raju has committed suicide.
32. Further it is argued that the neighbours of the deceased also deposed that the accused was quarreling with her husband. PW4 and PW5 clearly deposed that the accused not maintained a good relationship with her husband. It is argued by the Prosecutor that PW1 to PW8 speak about the cruelty of the accused and further argued that the accused taken up a different defence at the time of crossexamination of the witness, so there is no 19 S.C. No.161/2017 consistency in the defence taken by the accused. On the other hand, the evidence of PW1 to PW16 clearly reflects that the accused inflicted cruelty on her husband and abetted him to commit suicide. Accordingly, learned Public Prosecutor prayed to convict the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.306 IPC.
33. The learned Advocate for the accused vehementally argued that the accused is an innocent lady has not committed any offence. It is argued that at the time of crossexamination witnesses admitted that after the marriage, accused, her husband, brotherinlaw, fatherin law and motherinlaw all of them were residing in the same house. It is argued that at no point of time the accused abetted her husband to commit suicide.
34. The learned Advocate argued that PW2, in his crossexamination admitted that at no point of time his brother informed to him that accused quarreled with deceased. Further PW2 in his crossexamination admitted that at no point of time his deceased brother complained 20 S.C. No.161/2017 that he did not want to continue the marital relationship with the accused. Further he admitted that at no point of time accused lodged complaint against her husband or his family members.
35. It is argued that PW1, who is father of the deceased in the crossexamination admitted that on the marriage anniversary accused and his wife taken them to Kalyananagar Restaurant and also admitted that his son has not filed any petition against accused seeking dissolution of marriage. Further complainant or his son have not filed any complaint against the accused complaining that she harassed and illtreated them.
36. Learned Advocate argued that the relationship of the accused with her husband was filled with love and affection and she discharged her duty as a wife towards her husband. It is argued that as per admission of PW1 his son borrowed a loan from the Bank to purchase the site and the entire salary of the deceased has gone to EMI. Inspite of that the accused maintained the family. It is 21 S.C. No.161/2017 argued that when the accused was in need for money she has taken loan from the Bank to maintain the family. It is argued that since the fatherinlaw of the accused belongs to the Police department, he managed to file a false case against the accused just to harass her. It is argued that U/Sec.313(5) Cr.P.C statement the accused produced the written statement along with copies of the photos and Bank statements and other documents, so at no point of time she harassed or treated her husband with cruelty and it is argued that the accused is not responsible for the death of her husband as she has not abetted him to commit suicide. Accordingly, prayed for acquittal of the accused.
37. It is the definite case of the prosecution that the accused being wife of deceased Raju harassed her husband and caused mental agony to him and drove him to commit suicide.
38. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the accused and Raju solemnized on 21.11.2012. Further it is 22 S.C. No.161/2017 not in dispute that after the marriage the accused started her matrimonial life in the matrimonial house along with inlaws and other family members. It is also not in dispute that after some time accused and her husband setup separate house at Vijinapura and continued their marital life. It is also not in dispute that on 7.11.2015 in between 400 to 630 p.m. Raju committed suicide. It is burden on the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused abetted her husband to commit suicide. In this case the death of Raju is suicidal death, so now it is for the court to see that whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused abetted her husband to commit suicide. It is up to the prosecution to prove that the accused had instigated her husband to commit suicide. Suicide is nothing but an act of self killing.
39. Section 107 of Indian Penal Code deals with an Abetment: 23 S.C. No.161/2017
107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who--
(First) -- Instigates any person to do that thing; or (Secondly) -- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (Thirdly) -- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
24
S.C. No.161/2017
40. Offence of abetment by instigation begins upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act much is done by the person, who has been abeted, so the abetment may be by way of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided U/Sec.107 of the CPC. The prosecution shall prove the menseria of the accused.
U/Sec.306 of IPC reads as under:
306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
41. The abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person or intentional aiding a person in doing of a thing. In the present case undoubtedly the accused has committed suicide by hanging in his residence.
42. PW1 is the complainant and the father of the deceased Raju. PW2 is the brother of the deceased, PW3 is the mother of the deceased. PW1 deposed that the accused 25 S.C. No.161/2017 always picked up a quarrel with her husband and she used to leave the matrimonial house and she damaged the mobile phone of her motherinlaw and locked her mother inlaw in the room and also she used to harass her husband. Further he deposed that in the month of February 2015 the accused along with her husband left the matrimonial house and started to reside in a separate house at Vijinapura, but she has not changed her attitude towards her husband and elders. According to this witness on 6.11.2015 Raju came to his house and he was looking so dull and without taking breakfast he left the house and on 7.11.2015 PW1 came across that his son committed suicide. During the crossexamination some photographs are confronted to PW1. Witness identified the photographs and it got marked as Ex.D.1 to 7. Those photographs are relating to performing pooja and also other photographs to show that on 30.10.2015 the accused and her husband attended the marriage reception. Further Ex.D.7 is the photograph, it reflects that accused and her husband taken the photograph at a lighter moment, so it reflects 26 S.C. No.161/2017 that accused and her husband used to attend the family functions together.
43. Further according to the accused deceased Raju availed a loan to purchase the site. This fact is admitted by PW1 at the time of crossexamination. PW1 also admitted that site has been purchased by availing a loan. The sale deed has been confronted to PW1 at the time of crossexamination. PW1 admitted the sale deed and it is marked as Ex.D.8. On perusal of sale deed it reflects that on 25.04.2015 site has been purchased by deceased Raju, his brother Manju and their father F.K.Havanur (PW1), so it is clear that the property has been purchased jointly and it also admits that Raju availed a loan. Further according to PW1, accused always quarreling with her inlaws and harassed them and she also has harassed her husband, when she was residing in the house of PW1.
44. But during the crossexamination PW1 admitted that on 22.11.2014 accused and her husband taken PW1 and his wife to celebrate the marriage anniversary at 27 S.C. No.161/2017 Kalyana Nagar Restaurant. According to the accused, she herself and her husband planned to go to Singapore. They decided leave for Singapore and they booked the hotel also, but the said suggestion is denied by PW1. But he admitted that he came to know that in the pocket of the deceased, Police have noticed the Singapore currency notes, so it cannot be disputed that the accused and her husband planned to go to Singapore. Further it is pertinent to note that in the crossexamination PW1 admitted that in the month of December 2014 he himself, his wife, accused and his wife visited Ooty, Rameshwaram temples in Tamilnadu and Kerala. So it cannot be believed that since the day one of marriage the accused was quarreling with her husband and his family members. If the accused was in the habit of picking up quarrel with her inlaws and her husband, it is not possible to go for tour together. Further PW1 in his crossexamination admitted that his son has not filed any petition against his wife seeking divorce. If really the accused had harassed her husband, in such a manner definitely her husband would have filed a complaint or 28 S.C. No.161/2017 could have filed a petition seeking divorce. But he has not done so.
45. Further PW1 in his evidence deposed that the accused assaulted on his wife and she locked his wife and another son Manju. But in this regard no complaint has been lodged. If really the accused harassed her brotherin law and locked them in the room definitely they could have filed a complaint or there could be a Panchayath, but no action from the side of PW1. Though PW1 deposed that after setting up separate house the accused has not changed her attitude towards her husband, but contrary to this PW1 deposed that, at no point of time either he himself or his wife or his son Manju visited the house of accused and Raju, which situated at Vijinapura and he also admitted that they have not seen how the relationship was between accused and her husband at Vijinipura. So, it cannot be believed that the accused has illtreated her husband in the house at Vijinapura where they were residing separately. So, it is difficult to believe that the 29 S.C. No.161/2017 accused treated her husband with cruelty and she was not cordial with her husband.
46. PW2, who is brother of deceased deposed that soon after 23 days from the date of marriage the accused quarreled with her husband and other family members. According to PW2, accused used to quarrel with her husband every day and leaving the matrimonial house. According to him even after the setup of a separate house, accused not treated her husband in proper way. In his evidence he deposed that in the month of September 2015 he went to Spain for work and contacted his brother through message. Further he deposed that his brother not disclosed anything about his matrimonial life. In his evidence he deposed that his brother committed suicide on 7.11.2015 and on coming to know, he returned to Bangalore on 9.11.2015, so it is very clear that at the time of incident PW2 was at Spain and he was not aware how the relationship was between accused and her husband. 30
S.C. No.161/2017
47. Further PW2 in his crossexamination admitted that he has not come across either through neighbours or through the owner of the house of the accused about the quarreling of the accused with her husband. He also admitted that he has no personal knowledge that how the accused and her husband were leading a life in house at Vijinapura. He also admitted that at no point of time deceased Raju whispered that he don't want his wife. Further it is admitted that the accused has not lodged police complaint against her husband or other family members. He deposed that after some days of the death of his brother Police have recorded his statement. He deposed that he has not stated before Police that the parents of the accused assaulted on accused.
48. So, it is very clear that PW2 is not aware anything about the personal life of accused and her husband. Apart from that, the husband of the accused also not complained against his wife before his brother. If really the accused given mental torture to her husband 31 S.C. No.161/2017 definitely he could have disclose the same before his only bother. So the case of prosecution that accused tortured and instigated her husband to commit suicide, cannot be believed.
49. PW3, who is the motherinlaw of the deceased. She deposed in consonance of the evidence of PW1, who is none other than her husband. In her evidence it reflects that though her son Raju setup a separate house, he used to meet PW3 mother. Further when PW3 fell sick and got admitted to the hospital accused and her husband visited her in the hospital. According to PW3, her son lastly on 6.11.2015 met her and he was looking sad. In the cross examination PW3 also admitted that after the marriage she herself, her husband, accused and her husband together went for tour and visit places Hampi, Mantralaya, Bandipura, Ooti etc. If the relationship between the couple is not good, it cannot be believed that they will make several tours together.
32
S.C. No.161/2017
50. Regarding the loan PW3 admitted that deceased Raju availed loan for the construction of the house and further she admitted that her son and accused plan to visit Malaysia and Singapore and she came to know this fact through her son. So, it is very clear that the accused and her husband planned go to Singapore for tour, but prior to that husband of accused committed suicide. If the accused was harassing her husband no husband could make a plan to take his wife for foreign tour.
51. PW4 and PW5 are independent witnesses. PW4 was neighbour of the PW1, who was spoken about accused that she used to quarrel with the family members, so PW1 setup a separate house for accused and her husband. In the crossexamination PW4 deposed that he is not personally aware abut the personnel life of accused and her husband. On the other hand, he came to know everything through PW1. The evidence of PW4 is not helpful for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.
33
S.C. No.161/2017
52. PW5 is also relative of deceased. Though in examination chief speaks that the accused was quarreling with her husband and inlaws, in the crossexamination he admitted that he cannot say when exactly Panchayath taken place and what was decided in the Panchayath. According to this witness PW1 made an arrangement for a separate house to the accused and her husband. According to this witness the deceased himself disclosed that his wife is quarrelsome lady, but in the cross examination he admitted that deceased has not filed any complaint against his wife and not filed any petition saying that he don't want his wife.
53. PW6 deposed that the accused used to quarrel with her husband for silly things, but according to this witness deceased has not disclosed anything against his wife. On the other hand, he come to know all the facts through PW1. He deposed that PW2 himself told that he made an arrangement for a separate house to his son and accused. He deposed that he came across the fact that 34 S.C. No.161/2017 both accused and her husband were cordial. The evidence of PW6 is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the charge leveled against the accused.
54. PW7, who is the cousin of the deceased deposed that Raju had stated before her that his wife was quarreling with him, but she deposed that the accused and her husband had visited her house for house warming ceremony. She also admitted that on 16.08.2015 the accused and her parents, deceased and his parents all have attended the house warming ceremony at Chitradurga and participated in Pooja. In this regard the accused produced the photographs before the court. So, it is clear that the accused along with her husband and other family members together happily participated the family function.
55. According to PW8, though the accused and his wife were living at Vijinapura separately, he came to know that accused used to give pinpricks to her husband. This witness, in his crossexamination admits that he also 35 S.C. No.161/2017 participated to the house warming ceremony at Chitradurga. By that time accused and her husband had also participated in the said function and taken lead in all activities.
56. The accused committed suicide on 7.11.2015. Prior to some days the accused and her husband and other family members visited Chitradurga to attend the house warming ceremony.
57. PW13 deposed that the accused called her husband as "Nayi" and she used to pick up quarrel with her husband, so accused husband has committed suicide, but in the crossexamination this witness deposed that at no point of time he visited the house of the accused and Raju and also deposed that the accused and their family members visited the house warming ceremony. This witness also deposed that accused and her husband planned to go to Singapore on 21.11.2015 and they booked ticket. Further he admitted that accused and his wife used to go for pick nick. Further admitted that the accused was 36 S.C. No.161/2017 going for work and deceased used to take her in a vehicle to drop her to the office, so it is very clear that the accused was also working and contributing to run the family.
58. By the above evidence it is very clearly reflected that after the marriage the accused and her husband lived along with other family members and the relationship was cordial. All the family members planned to go for tour and visited many places. Even after a set up of separate house the accused, her husband and his family members visited many places and participated in the family functions. When the PW3 fell sick and hospitalized, the accused visited hospital along with her husband to see her mother inlaw. Further in evidence it reflects that the accused along with her husband and inlaws visited many temples at Tamilnadu and Kerala etc. Further husband of accused booked a ticket and hotel to visit Singapore and Malaysia on 21.11.2015, so it is very clear that the husband and wife were very cordial and both were enjoying their life with all comforts.
37
S.C. No.161/2017
59. PW3, mother of deceased deposed that her son was very sensitive. It appears that since deceased Raju was very sensitive without some strong reason he would not have committed suicide. The accused being wife of deceased, lead happy marital life and they together visited many places and were in the habit of going for picknick and together used to go to office and her husband used to drop her at office. Further deceased Raju visited his parents on 6.11.2015 and he has not disclosed anything against his wife before his parents. Further in the evidence it reflects that it brought coupon to purchase the saree to his wife. These evidence also reflects that the relationship between the accused and her husband was cordial and there was no abetment by the accused to her husband to commit suicide.
60. There is no sufficient believable evidence to show that the accused instigated her husband or abetted her husband to commit suicide. Further I am of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the 38 S.C. No.161/2017 accused has harassed her husband and abetted her husband to commit suicide. The evidence of PW3 reflects that Raju was sensitive man and it might have lead to take such a extreme decision to commit suicide. There is no material evidence placed by the prosecution to show that this accused played a role against her husband for commiting suicide. With the above discussions, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused used to insult her husband in the presence of relatives and treated him with all cruelty and created the situation which drove him to commit suicide. Accordingly, I answered Point No.1 is in Negative.
61. Point No.2: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable u/S. 306 IPC.39
S.C. No.161/2017 Her bail bond stands cancelled.
M.O.1 and 2 are worthless, hence, ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
The accused shall comply the provisions U/Sec. 437(A) of Cr.P.C. and shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/ with one surety for likesum for her appearance before higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against this judgment.
(Dictated to the Judgmentwriter, transcribed and computerized by him and after carrying out corrections by me, print out taken by him and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 12th day of October, 2021.) (Smt.K.G. Shanthi) LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Prosecution: PW.1 : F.K.Havanoor PW.2 : Manju F.Havanoor 40 S.C. No.161/2017 PW.3 : Mallavva PW.4 : Suresh Kumar PW.5 : Lingappa Kariyappa Havanoor PW.6 : Venkatesh PW.7 : Saroja PW.8 : Basavaraj P. Chathri PW.9 : Hanumanthappa PW.10 : Ningavva PW.11 : Dr.S.C.Krishnappa PW.12 : Dr.B.M.Nagaraju PW.13 : Lalitha PW.14 : Kannappa Chathrad PW.15 : Kanthesh Karalingappanavaru PW.16 : Nagaraju List of documents marked for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P1(b) : Signature of PW.11 Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P2(b) : Signature of PW.9 Ex.P2(c) : Signature of PW10 Ex.P2(d) : Signature of PW16 Ex.P3 : Written statement of PW6 Ex.P4 : FIR Ex.P5 : Postmortem report Ex.P5(a) : Signature of PW12 Ex.P6 : Inquest Mahazar Ex.P6(a) : Signature Ex.P6(b) : Statement of M.M.Kumar Ex.P6(c) : Signature Ex.P6(d) : Signature
List of Mos. marked for prosecution : MO1 Chudidar MO2 Yellowblue coloured Dhupatta 41 S.C. No.161/2017 List of documents marked for the Defence:
Ex.D.1 to 7 Photos Ex.D.8 Cc of Sale deed Ex.D.9 Photos Ex.D.10 to 15 Photos
LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.42
S.C. No.161/2017 Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separate Judgment) ORDER Acting U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable u/S. 306 IPC.
Her bail bond stands cancelled.
M.O.1 and 2 are worthless, hence, ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
The accused shall comply the provisions U/Sec. 437(A) of Cr.P.C.
and shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/ with one surety for likesum for her appearance before 43 S.C. No.161/2017 higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against this judgment.
LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.