Bangalore District Court
The State vs A1. Ramprasad.L on 18 January, 2023
KABC010214152015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2023.
Present;
SRI. PRAKASH.V., B.A(L)., LL.B.
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C.No.1075/2015
COMPLAINANT: The State
Represented by
Amruthahally Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED: A1. Ramprasad.L
S/o Lakshminarayana,
Aged about 29 years,
R/at No.71, 4th Cross,
Amruthanagar C-Sector,
Bengaluru-92.
Also R/at No.8, Muneshwara Extension,
Near Lakshmi Dry Cleaners,
Rajeev Gandhi Nagar,
Laggere, Bengaluru-58.
A2. Lakshminarayana(Dead)
A3. Smt. Gayathri
A4. Santhosh
A3 and A4 are R/at No.642, 42nd Main,
2 S.C.No.1075/2015
8th Cross, Muneshwara Layout,
Laggere, Bengaluru.
(Rep.By Sri.K.B.K., Advocate)
1. Date of commission of : 11/12-06-2015
offence
2. Date of report of Offence : 12-06-2015
3. Name of the Complainant : Narayanaswamy
4. Date of commencement : 14-12-2017
of recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of : 03-08-2022
evidence
6. Offences Complained : Under Sections.498(A),
are 304(B), 109 r/w 34 of IPC and
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(POA)
Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.1 is found guilty
for the offences punishable
under Sections.498(A) and
304-B of IPC.
Accused No.1 is not found
guilty for the offence
punishable Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989.
Accused No.3 and 4 are not
found guilty for the offence
punishable u/sec.498(A), 304-
B, 109 r/w 34 of IPC and
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(POA)
Act, 1989.
JUDGMENT
ACP, Sampigehalli Sub-Division, Bengaluru has submitted Charge-sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 3 S.C.No.1075/2015 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 304(B), 109 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, the deceased Lavanya and accused No.1 were in love and subsequently, the parents of deceased Lavanya have performed their marriage on 17.10.2010 in Chanakya Hall of Hotel Haripriya situated at Mandya by giving cash of Rs.3 Lakhs and 100 gms golden ornaments towards dowry. After the marriage and during their stay in the house of CW12 bearing No.47 situated at 4 th Cross of Amruthanagar, the accused No.1 at the instigation of accused No.2 to 4, who are not being the members of SC/ST subjected the deceased Lavanya to mental and physical cruelty with a demand to bring more dowry. Due to the said cruelty and harassment for dowry, the deceased Lavanya has committed suicide by hanging on 11/12-06-2015. Accordingly, the father of deceased had lodged his complaint before the SHO, Amruthahally police station. On the basis of said 4 S.C.No.1075/2015 complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.100/2015. The Investigating officer has visited the place of incident, prepared spot panchanama, seized death note, got conducted inquest over the dead body through Taluk Magistrate, recorded the statement of witnesses, got conducted post morteim through medical officer and after receipt of PM report and handwriting expert report filed charge sheet.
3. During the course of investigation, the accused No.1 was apprehended and produced before this Court and subsequently he got enlarged on bail. After filing of charge sheet this Court took cognizance of the offences and issued NBW against the accused No.2 to 4. The accused No.2 to 4 have approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and obtained order of anticipatory bail in Criminal Petition No.5156/2015 and appeared before this court and got enlarged on regular bail. Charge sheet copies were furnished to the accused persons as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before the charge. As there was sufficient materials available, charge was framed for the offences 5 S.C.No.1075/2015 punishable under Section 498A, 304(B), 109 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989., read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused No.2 was reported to be dead during the course of trial. Hence, the case against accused No.2 stands abated.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of accused persons, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.19, got exhibited 19 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19 and M.O.1 to 6 are marked. Ex.D1 to D15 were marked through confrontation during the course of cross- examination of prosecution witnesses. The statement of the accused under section 313 was recorded, read over and explained to the accused persons in vernacular language and the accused have denied all the incriminating evidence. In addition to that, the accused No.1 had submitted his written reply. 6 S.C.No.1075/2015
5. Heard the arguments of both sides and following points would arise for the determination of this Court are as follows;
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that in the house No.47 situated at 4 th Cross of Amruthanagar, the accused No.1 being the husband of deceased Smt.Lavanya at the instigation of her in laws i.e., accused No.3 and 4 has subjected deceased to cruelty with a view to coercing her and her parents to meet unlawful demand of dowry and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 498(A) r/w 34 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the death of Smt. Lavanya was caused in the house No.47 situated at 4th Cross of Amruthanagar, otherwise than the under normal circumstances in the night of 11-06-2015 which 7 S.C.No.1075/2015 was within 7 years of her marriage with accused No.1, as she was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry and thereby committed dowry death and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 304-B r/w 34 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.3 and 4 have abetted the accused No.1 to harass the deceased Lavanya mentally and physically with a demand to bring dowry and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 109 r/w 34 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1, 3 and 4 are not being the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have subjected the deceased Lavanya to mental and physical cruelty by demanding 8 S.C.No.1075/2015 dowry, who is a member of Scheduled Caste and thereby committed offence under Section 304-B of IPC which is punishable with imprisonment of life and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
5) What order?
6. My findings to the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the 'Partly Affirmative' Point No.2 : In the 'Partly Affirmative' Point No.3 : In the 'Negative' Point No.4 : In the 'Negative' Point No.5 : As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
7. POINT No.1 to 4 : These points are inter-linked with one another, hence, I took up these points together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence. It is the definite case of prosecution that, the deceased Lavanya and accused No.1 were in love and subsequently, the parents of deceased Lavanya have performed their marriage on 17.10.2010 in Chanakya 9 S.C.No.1075/2015 Hall of Hotel Haripriya situated at Mandya by giving cash of Rs.3 Lakhs and 100 gms golden ornaments towards dowry. After the marriage and during their stay in the house of CW12 bearing No.47 situated at 4 th Cross of Amruthanagar, the accused No.1 at the instigation of accused No.2 to 4, who are not being the members of SC/ST subjected the deceased Lavanya to mental and physical cruelty with a demand to bring more dowry. Due to the said cruelty and harassment for dowry, the deceased Lavanya has committed suicide by hanging on 11/12-06-2015.
8. To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses. PW1- Narayanaswamy is the complainant and father of deceased. PW2-Smt.Neelamma is the mother and PW3- Smt.Lathashree is the elder sister of deceased are the materials witnesses and also attesting witnesses to the Ex.P.9/Inquest panchanama, PW4-M.C.Mahadevappa is the attesting witness to Ex.P.9/Inquest panchanama, PW6-Siddaraju is the uncle of deceased and PW5- Pradeep is the witness who said to given statement 10 S.C.No.1075/2015 regarding the death of deceased, PW8-Dasegowda and PW13-Kannappa are the owners of respective houses where the accused No.1 and deceased were residing, PW14-K.Shivakumar said to be son of house owner and witnessed alleged harrasment given by the accused No.1 to the deceased on the last night of her life and one of the attesting witness to the spot Panchananama, PW15-Smt.M.Muniyamma another attesting witness to Ex.P.25/Spot Panchanama, PW7-Ramesh Acharya, is the owner of Haripriya Hotel situated at Mandya, PW9- Dr.B.M.Nagaraj is the medical officer, who conducted Postmarterm over the dead body of deceased, PW11- Anithalakshmi, Wome Police Costable who shifted the dead body to the hospital, PW12-Vittal Nyamegowda, Police Constable carried FIR to the Court, PW10- Parameshwar Upadyaya, Police Constable produced Diary/death note before FSL, PW17-B.S.Srinivasraj, Police Inspector said to registered FIR on the basis of complaint, PW18-M.Muniyappa, Special.Tahasildar said to have conducted inquest panchanama and PW16-Y. Nagaraj, ACP of Sampigehalli Sub-Division said to 11 S.C.No.1075/2015 conducted partial investigation in the case. The evidence of CW4, CW5, CW8 and CW18 are given up by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. CW24 is another investigating officer who conducted the investigation of this in part is reported to be dead.
9. On careful perusal of the materials available on record it appears to me that, while recording the statement of accused persons as required u/sec.313 of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 has filed his written submission wherein he has taken specific contention which reads as follows;
"ಈ ಮಮಲಲಲಡ ಕಮಸನ ಆರರಮಪಯದ ನನನ ತಮಮ ಲ
ಳ ವದಮನಲದರ, ನನನ 2008 ರಲದ ಮಲಡಡನಗರದಲ
ಕಮಳಕರಳನ
ದ ,
ವಸವದನ ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ Spice telecom
Company ಯಲ Sale Executive ಆಗ ಕಲಸ
ನರರಹಸನತತದ. 2010 ರಲ ನನನ ಸನಮಹತ ವನಯ ಕನಮರ ಅರರನ B.Ed ವಡಸಲಗ ಮಡನತತದದ ನ ಲರಣಡ ಕರಡ ಅದಮ ಕಲಮಜನಲ B.Ed ಓದನತತದದರನ. ನನನ ಸನಮಹತನಲದ 2010 ರಲ ಲರಣಡ ಪರಚಯವದರನ. ಅದಮ ಸನಮಹ ಬಳದನ ಇಬಬರರ ಪಪಮತಸನತತದವ. ಇದಮ ಪಪಮತಸನತತದದ ಸಮಯದಲ ಲರಣಡ ಮನಯರರನ ಲರಣಡಳಗ ಬಮರಯರರ ಜರತ ಮದನವ ಮಡಲನ ನಶಶಯಸರನತತರ. ಲರಣಡಳಗ ಆ ಮದನವ ಇಷಷವರಲಲಲ ಹಗರ ನಮಮ ಪಪಮತಯ ವಚರ ಅರರ ಮನಗ ಹಮಳನವದಕಲ ಧಧಯರವರಲಲಲ. ಹಗಗ ನವ ಮದನವ ಮಡಕರಲಡನ 12 S.C.No.1075/2015 ಹಮಳರಮಣ, ಆಗ ಒಪಪ ಕರಳನ ಳ ತತರ ಎಲದನ ಹಮಳದಗ ನನನ ಕರಡ ಒಪಪ 16/09/2010 ಇಬಬರ ಮನಗ ಗರತತಲಲದ ಹಗ ಪಲಡನಪರಕಲ ಹರಮಗನರ ದರಯಲ ಒಲದನ ಗಣಪತ ದಮರಸಸನದಲ ಮದನವ ಮಡಕರಲಡವ. ಮದನವ ಮಡಕರಲಡ ನಲತರ ಎರಡನ ಮನಯರರಗರ ವಚರ ತಳಸದವ. ಆಗ ಲರಣಡ ಮನಯರರನ ಗಲಟ ಮಡ ಲರಣಡಳಗ ಹರಡದನ ಹರಮಗರನತತರ. ತದನಲತರ ಲರಣಡರ ಮನಯರರನ ನಮಮ ನ ಕರಸ ಮತನಡ ಒಪಪರನತತರ. ನವ ಮಮದಲಮ ಮನಯರರನನ ಮದನವ ಮಡಕರಲಡದದರಲದ ಲರಣಡ ಮನಯರರನ ಹರಪಪಯ ಹರಮಟಲನಲ 17/10/2010 ರಲದನ ರಸಪಷನ ಮಡಕರಟಷರನ.
ನಲತರ ನನನ ಹಗರ ಲರಣಡ ಇಬಬರಮ ಮಲಡಡದಲ ಬಡಗ ಮನಯಲ ವಸ ಮಡನತತದವ. ನನನ ತಲದ, ತಯ, ತಮಮ ಹಸನದಲ ವಸ ಮಡನತತದದರನ. ಈಗಮ ಇರನವಗ ಮಲಡಡದಲ ಕಲಸದ ಅರಕಶ ಕಡಮಯರನವದರಲದ ಬಲಗಳರರಗ ಬರಲನ ನರರರಸದ. ಬಲಗಳರರಗ ಬರಲನ ಲರಣಡ ಅರರ ಮನಯರರಗ ಇಷಷವರಲಲಲ. ಏಕಲದರ ಅರಳಗ ಅನರರಮಗಡದ ಕರಣ ಹಗರ ತನಲಬ ಹಠಸಸಭರದರಳನ ಆಗದದಳನ. ಆದರ ನನಗ ಕಲಸಕಲ ಹರಮಗಲಮ ಬಮಕದ ಅನವಯರದಲ ಅರರನನ ನ ಒಪಪಸದನನ.
ಅರರಗ ಅರಳ ಹಠದ ಸಸಭರ ಮತನತ ಅನರರಮಗಡದ ಕರಣದಲದ ಬಲಗಳರರನಲ ವಸಸನತತದದ ಲರಣಡ ಅರಳ ಅಕಲ ಹಗರ ಭರ ಜರತ ದರಡಡ ಮನ ಬಡಗ ಮಡಕರಲಡನ ಇರ ಎಲದರನ.
ಅದರಲತ ಅರರ ಜರತ ಬಡಗ ಹಗರ ಅಡಸನನ ಮತನತ ಮನಯ ಖಚನರಗಳನನ ನ ಸಮನಲತರವಗ ನಮಡನತತ ಇದವ ಹಗರ ನನನ Dish TV India Ltd., ಕಲಪನಯಲ ಕಲಸಕಲ ಸಮರಕರಲಡನ ಜಮರನ ನಡಸನತತದವ. ಈಗಗ ಒಲದರಲದನ ಬರ ಲರಣಡ ಹಗರ ಅರರ ಅಕಲ ಲತ ಜಗಳವಡನತತದದರನ ಹಗರ ಲರಣಡಳಗ ಇಷಷವಲಲದ ಕರಣ ಯವಗಲರ ಮಲಡಡದಲರನರ 13 S.C.No.1075/2015 ಅರರ ತಲದ, ತಯ ಮನಗ ಹರಮಗನತತದದಳನ ಹಗರ 10 ರಲದ 15 ದನ ಅಲ ಉಳದನ ಬರನತತದದಳನ. ಈಗಗ ಒಲದನ ಬರ ಅರರ ಅಕಲ ಲತರ ಜರತ ಜಗಳ ಮಡದಗ ರತಪ ಸನಮರನ 11.30 ರಲ ನಮಮ ನನ ನ ಇಲ ಇರಬಮಡ ಹರಮಗ ಎಲದನ ಹಮಳದರನ.
ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ ನನನ ಹಗರ ಲರಣಡ ಮನಯಲದ ಹರರ ಹರಮಗನತತರನವಗ ಅಮಮತಹಳಳ ಪಲಮಸನಮಮ ನನ ನ ಗಮನಸ ಲತ ಅರರ ಜರತ ಮತನಡ ಸಮಧನ ಮಡ ಅಲ ಉಳಸದರನ.
ಮರನಮ ದನ ಲರಣಡ ಅರರ ಅಕಲನ ಜರತ ಬಮಸರಗರಲಡನ ಮಲಡಡಕಲ ಹರಮಗನತತಮನ ಎಲದನ ನನನನನ ನ ಕನಮಡ ಬರಬಮಕಲದನ ಹಠ ಹಡದಳನ. ಆದರ ನನನ ಕಲಸಕಲ ಹರಮಗಬಮಕದ ಕರಣ ಸಮಧನಪಡಸ ಬಮರ ಮನ ಮಡರಮಣ ಎಲದನ ಹಮಳ ಕಲಸಕಲ ಹರಮದನನ. ಆದರ ಲರಣಡ ನನನ ಕಲಸಕಲ ಹರಮದ ಸಮಯದಲ ಯರಗರ ತಳಸದಮ ತನನ ತಲದಗ ನನನ ಸಯನತತಮನ ಎಲದನ ಹಮಳ ರಮರಸಸಳಕಲ ಹರಮಗನತತಳ. 2 ದನಗಳ ನಲತರ ಮಲಡಡದ ಅರರ ಮನಗ ಹರಮಗನತತಳ. ಇದರಲದ ನನಗ ಬಮಸರವಗ ಅರರ ಮನಯರರಗ ಹಮಳ ಜಕರ ಲ ರನಲ ಒಲದನ ಮನಯನನ ನ ಬಡಗಗ ತಗದನಕರಲಡನ ಲರಣಡಳನನ ನ ಕರದನಕರಲಡನ ಬಲದನ ಇಬಬರಮ ಇರನತತಮವ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ ನಮಮ ತಲದ, ತಯ, ತಮಮ ನ ಜರತ ಮಡನಡಲನ ಬಡನತತರಲಲಲ ಹಗರ ಇದನ ಅರಳಗ ಇಷಷವರಲಲಲ.
ಆದದರಲದ ಇರಳ ಹಠಕಲ ಹದರ ನನನ ಅರರನನ ತ ನಮ
ನ ಯರತರ ಮ
ಮನಗ ಕರದರಲಲಲ. ಅರರಗ ನವ ಎಲ ಇದವಲಬನದನ
ಗರತತರಲಲಲ. ಲರಣಡಳಗ ಗರತತರದ ಹಗ ಪಮನನಲಯಮ ಯಮಮಗಕಮ ವಚರಸನತತದ.
ಈಗಗ ಒಲದನ ಬರ ಚಕಲ ವಷಯಕಲ ನನನ ಮಮಲ ಜಗಳವಡ
ಮನಯಲರನರ ಟ.ವ ಮತನತ ಇನನತರ ಸಮಗಪಗಳನನ
ನ
ಒಡದನಹಕರನತತಳ. ಈ ಸಮಯದಲ ಮನಯ ಮಲಮಕರನ
ಲರಣಡಳಗ ಸಮಧನ ಮಡಲನ ಬಲದಗ ಅದಕಲ
ಕರಮಪಗರಲಡನ ಅಮಮತಹಳಳ ಠಣಯಲ ನನನ ಮಮಲ ದರರನನ ನ 14 S.C.No.1075/2015 ಕರಡನತತಳ. ಪಲಮಸನರರನ ಪರಶಮಲಸ ಮಹಳ ದಕತ ಸಮತ ಕನನಲಲಗಗ ಇಬಬರನನ ನ ಹರಮಗ ಬರಲನ ಹಮಳನತತರ. ನಲತರ ನವ ಕನನಲಲಗ ಕನಮಡ ಮಡಸರನತತಮನ. ಅಲಯರ ಕರಡ ನನನ ತಲದ, ತಯ ಹಗರ ತಮಮ ನ ಜರತ ಮತನಡಬರದನ ಹಗರ ಮಲಡಡಕಲ ಹರಮಗಬಮಕನ ಬಲಗಳರರನ ಬಮಡ ಎಲದನ ಹಮಳರನತತಳ. ಮತತ ನವ ಮನಯನನ ನ ಅಮಮತಹಳಳ ಪಲಮಸ ಠಣಯ ಎದನರನ ಹರಸದಗ ಬಡಗಗ ಪಡದನ ಇರನತತಮನ.
ಈಗಗ ಒಲದನ ಬರ ಅನಮಯ ಕಯಲಯಲದ ಲರಣಡಳನನ ನ ಆಸಪತಪಗ ಸಮರಸರನತತಮನ. ನಲತರ ಅರರ ತಲದ, ತಯ ವಶಪಲತಗಲದನ ಮಲಡಡಕಲ ಕರದನಕರಲಡನ ಹರಮಗನತತರ. ನಲತರ 11/06/2015 ರಲದನ ಲರಣಡ ತಲದ, ತಯಯ ಜರತ ಜಗಳವಡಕರಲಡನ ಅದಮ ದನ ರತಪ ನನಗ ತಳಸದಮ ಮಲಡಡದಲದ ಬಲಗಳರರಗ ಹಲತರನಗ ನನಗ ಪಮನ ಮಡನತತಳ. ಆದರ ನನನ ಪಮನ switch ಆಫ ಇರನತತದ. ನಲತರ ನನನ ನನನ ಸನಮಹತನ ಮನಯಲ ಪಮನ ಚಜರಲಗ ಮಡಕರಲಡನ ಆನ ಮಡದಗ ಲರಣಡ ಪಮನ ಮಡ ಅಳನತತಳ. ನನನ ಕರಡಲಮ ಅರಳನ ಇದದ ಕಡ ಬಲದನ ಮನಗ ಕರದನಕರಲಡನ ಹರಮದ ನಲತರ ತನಲಬ ಸಟಷನಲದ ಅರರ ತಲದ, ತಯ ಜರತ ಪಮನನಲ ಜಗಳವಡ ನನನ ಮಮಲರ ಜಗಳವಡನತತಳ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ ನನನ ಸಮಧನಪಡಸ ಮಲಗಲನ ಹಮಳದಗ ಇಬಬರರ ಮಲಗನತತಮವ. ಬಳಗಗ ಸನಮರನ 4.30 ರ ವಮಳಗ ರಮಸಸಗ ಎಲದನ ಎದಗ ಅರಳನ ರರಮನಲ ಇರನವದಲಲ. ಹಲ ನಲ ಬಲದನ ನರಮಡದಗ ಆತಡಹತಡಯನನ ನ ಮಡಕರಲಡರನತತಳ. ನಲತರ ನನನ ತಕಣ ಪಲಮಸಸಷಮಷನಗ ಪಮನಮಡದ. ಆದರ ಅರರನ ಪಲಮಸಸಷಮಷನನಲ ಒಬಬರಮ ಇರರಮದನ ಅಲಬನಲನನ ಗ ಪಮನಮಡ ಆಸಪತಪಗ ಕರದನಕರಲಡನ ಹರಮಗನ ಎಲದನ ಹಮಳದರನ. ನಲತರ ನನನ ಅರರ ತಲದ, ತಯ ಹಗರ ಬಲಗಳರರನಲ ವಸವದದ ಅರರ ದರಡಡಮಮ ನಗ ವಷಯ 15 S.C.No.1075/2015 ತಳಸದ. ನಲತರ ಅರರನ ಬಳಗಗ ಸನಮರನ 8.30 ಕಲ ಪಲಮಸರ ಜರತ ಬಲದರನ. ಆಗ ಪಲಮಸರನ ನನನನನ ನ ಕರದನಕರಲಡನ ಪಲಮಸಠಣಯಲರಸದರನ. ನಲತರ 3 ದನಗಳ ನಲತರ ಅರರ ಮನಯರರನ ಬಲದನ (16/06/2015) ನನನ ಮಮಲ ದರರನ ನಮಡದರನ. 16/06/2015 ರಲದನ ನನನನನ ನ ಪರಪಪನ ಅಗ ಪಹರಕಲ ಬಟಷರನ.
ಲರಣಡಳ ಆತಡಹತಡಗ ನನನ ಕರಣ ಅಲಲ. ನನನ ಅರಳನನ ನ ಚನನಗ ಳ ತತದ. ನಮ ನರಮಡಕರಳನ ಮ ತಲದ, ತಯ ಮತನತ ತಮಮ ನವ ಮದನವ ಮಡಕರಲಡಗನಲದಲರ ನಮಮ ಜರತ ವಸವಗರನವದಲಲ. ವನಕರಣ ನನಗ ತರಲದರ ಕರಡಬಮಕಲಬ ಉದಶದಲದ ನನನ ಹಗರ ನನನ ಕನಟನಲಬದರರ ಮಮಲ ಸನಳನ ಳ ದರರನನ ನ ನಮಡರನತತರ. ಅರಳಗ ಯವದಮ ಡಧರಯನನ ನ ಬರಯನರ ಅಭಡಸ ಇರನವದಲಲ.
ಆದಗ ನನನನನ ನ ಈ ಕಮಸನಲದ ಬಡನಗಡ ಮಡ ಎಲದನ ತಮಮ ಲ ಳ ತತಮನ. "
ವನಮಮತಯಲದ ಬಮಡಕರಳನ
10. On the background of above defence taken up by the accused No.1, the burden is heavily lies on the prosecution to connect the accused persons for the commission of suicide by deceased and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of bringing less dowry. Whether the prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of accused persons or not is to be discussed. Hence, it is 16 S.C.No.1075/2015 just and necessary to go through the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record.
11. P.W.1-Narayanaswamy in his chief examination deposed that CW3 and CW4 are his 1 st and 3rd daughters and deceased Lavanya is the 2nd daughter. CW2 is his wife.
The accused No.1 is the husband, accused No.2 to 4 are the in laws his deceased daughter. He belongs to Scheduled Caste-Adi Karnataka community and his deceased daughter was not working in the year 2010 and she came in contact with accused No.1 in the class pertaining to health and subsequently developed love affair between them. The accused No.1 to 4 are belongs to Brahmins community. Thereafter both families have solemnized their marriage on 17.10.2010 at Chanakya Hall of Haripriya Hotel, Mandya. At the time of marriage, the accused No.2 and 3 have demanded Rs.3 Lakhs cash and 100 grams gold ornaments towards dowry and he had given the same.
Thereafter, his deceased daughter was started to live in the matrimonial house upto 2 years at Mandya and subsequently they started to live in Amruthnagar, 17 S.C.No.1075/2015 Kodigehalli, Bengaluru and thereafter they were living together in his eldest daughter's house. The accused No.1 started harass his deceased daughter to bring money and subsequently his deceased daughter had lodged complaint before the Amruthahally Police. The Amruthally Police have called them to police station and settled the matter by giving advice. After 1½ year the accused No.1 and his deceased daughter shifted to another house which is about 2 km's away from the house of CW 3. The accused No. 2 to 4 used to visit the said house and all the accused used to harass his deceased daughter for money. His deceased daughter used to inform the said fact to him by phone and even personally when he visits her house. He used to advice them in the presence of his wife. The accused No.1 agreed to live properly. The accused No.1 was working in ICICI Bank and used to harass his deceased daughter for money. The accused No.1 used to beat her, press her neck with hands, attempt to kill her and causing threat to kill his daughter, if she does not bring money.
Because of the harassment, his daughter become sick 18 S.C.No.1075/2015 and admitted to hospital. The doctor had advised rest.
So he took his daughter to his house in Mandya. In the month of June 2015, his deceased daughter was staying with for 12 days. At that time, accused No.1 used to come to his house. He used to look after the accused No.1 lovingly. The accused No.1 insisted his daughter to come with money. On 11.06.2015, his daughter came to Bengaluru to give High School teachers CET Exam. His daughter studied M.Sc, B.Ed.
She reached Bengaluru at about 9.00 p.m. She telephoned accused No.1 and his phone was in off mode. On 12.06.2015, at 4.00 a.m., the accused No.1 telephoned and his son Jeevan has received the phone and the accused No.1 informed that Lavanya has committed suicide and died. Thereafter he along with his wife, son and other relatives came to the house of accused No.1. It was about 7.00 a.m., and her body was lying in the Hall. The police have arrested the accused No.1 and seized the Death Note. He identified the complaint as per Ex.P.1. He further deposed that, the body of deceased was shifted to Ambedkar Medical 19 S.C.No.1075/2015 College and police have conducted inquest Panchanama. At that time, he has given his statement to the police and Tahasildar. He identified his statement available in the inquest Panchanama as per Ex.P.2. He further deposed that, he and his wife being the job holders have saved money for his daughter's marriage and same was spent during marriage. He has given further statement to police on 15.07.2015 and produced marriage invitation, photographs and Caste Certificate. He identified three photographs and Wedding invitation Card as per Ex.P.3 to 6. The caste certificate of deceased daughter is also identified by the witness and same is marked as Ex.P.7. SBI Life insurance diary and Death Note stapled to the 1 st sheet of the diary is identified as Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.8(a). The signature of deceased daughter is marked as Ex.P.8(a) (I). Ex.P.8 was being used by his deceased daughter. He identified handwriting in Ex.P.8(a) as that of his deceased daughter. In Ex.P.8(a), his deceased daughter has written that the accused No.1 to 4 were physically, mentally torturing her and also abusing, 20 S.C.No.1075/2015 insulting her in the name of caste and they are responsible for her death. He identified the Saree, white slip, black colour Bra, Blue underwear attached with sanitary pad, Red colour Chudidar Top and Green colour chudidar pant of his deceased daughter and same is marked as M.O.1 to M.O.6. He further deposed that, M.O.1-Saree was used by his deceased daughter for hanging. He identified 4 photographs taken at the scene of offence and marked as per Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.12.
12. During the course of cross-examination of defence counsel it was elicited from his mouth that his deceased daughter and accused No.1 were residing separately at Mandya for two years and during that period the accused No.2 to 4 have shifted their residence to Leggere from Hassan. He pleads ignorance that the accused No.2 to 4 have shifted to Leggere as the accused No.4 was facing difficulties towards his job at Hassan. He accepted that the accused No.2 to 4 never residing with his daughter and accused No.1. He denied the suggestion that the accused No.1 used to advice the deceased Lavanya to maintain cordial 21 S.C.No.1075/2015 relationship with his parents and deceased Lavanya was opposing the same. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P.8(a) handwriting is not of his deceased daughter.
He rushed to the house of her deceased daughter at about 5.30 a.m. to 6.30 a.m., from Mandya. He accepted that his elder daughter Lathashree and younger daughter Rashmi were residing together at Bengaluru near the house of his deceased daughter. He accepted that the police have reached the house of her deceased daughter at 7.30.a.m. It was elicited from his mouth that at the time of his visit to the police station, his family members were in the house of his deceased daughter. He do not remember the name of the scribe of the complaint. It was further elicited that he had seen the dairy prior to filing of complaint. He do not remember that the police have seized the dairy or not.
13. P.W.2-Smt.Neelamma in her chief-examination deposed that, PW1 is her husband and CW3, CW4 and deceased Lavanya are her daughters and they belongs to Scheduled Caste-Adi Karnataka community. The accused No.1 is the husband of deceased and belongs 22 S.C.No.1075/2015 to Brahmin's community. Accused No.1 and deceased were in love while going to meditation class and subsequently they performed marriage with accused No.1 in Haripriya Hotel at Mandya and at the time of marriage, one long chain, one pair of ear ring, one gold chain, finger ring were given and watch to the accused No.1 with cash of Rs.3,00,000/- were given towards dowry. Thereafter, her daughter started to reside in Mandya and subsequently they shifted to Amruthanagar, Bengaluru. Thereafter, the accused No.1 started to ill treat her daughter mentally. Her daughter at first did not informed the same and later informed the same. Further they shifted to house in Jakkur. There too, the same thing used to repeat. The accused No.1 was working in ICICI bank. She know the accused No.2 to 4, who are the in laws of deceased and they also used to abuse and insult her deceased daughter in the name of caste and at the instigation of accused No.2 to 4, the accused No.1 harassed her deceased daughter. Thereafter, they came again to Amruthanagar, some where near Police Station. The 23 S.C.No.1075/2015 accused No.1 used to harass her daughter in the same way and once in her presence he attacked her daughter by pressing her neck. She called the mother and brother of accused No.1 and they came and took both of them to their house in Bengaluru. The next day, the accused No.1 and her daughter came back to their house. As her daughter was not keeping well, they took her to their house at Mandya. After 15 days, the accused No.1 came to her house and her daughter informed that accused No.1 has demanded money and they gave Rs.1,00,000/-. On 11.06.2015, her daughter went to Bengaluru to attend CET exam. Her daughter telephoned accused No.1 and he did not pick the phone after reaching Bengaluru. The phone reply came as 'Switched off'. Her daughter telephoned accused No.4. The accused no.4 abused her daughter on phone. Her daughter telephoned and informed this to her. Her son telephoned accused no.1 and he received the phone. Her son conveyed birthday wishes to accused No.1 and informed him about arrival of his sister to Bengaluru. Her daughter went to the house at Amruthnagar. She 24 S.C.No.1075/2015 telephoned the mother of accused No.1, accused No.3 and they did not respond. The accused No.1 telephoned and scolded her son, Jeevan too. At 4.00 a.m on 12.06.2015, the accused No.1 telephoned and informed her son that Lavanya has committed suicide. They came to the house of accused No.1 and reached at about 7.00 a.m. Her daughter found dead and her body was lying on the floor. She felt that the accused No.1 has murdered her daughter. The accused No.1 to 4 are responsible for the death of her daughter.
14. During the course of further chief-examination conducted on 09.03.2018 she deposed that she has given statement before the police and Tahasildar. The police have conducted inquest Panchanama. She identified Ex.P.8 and signature of her daughter which is already marked as Ex.P.8(a). She identified Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.12 photographs.
15. During the course of cross-examination of defence counsel, she accepted that prior to marriage held in Haripriya Hotel, her deceased daughter and accused 25 S.C.No.1075/2015 No.1 have married near Pandavapura Temple. She denied the suggestion that they have arranged the marriage of her daughter with some other person. She denied the suggestion that the handwritings of all 3 daughters are one and the same. 12 photographs were confronted to this witnesses and having admitted the same the said photographs are marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D12. She accepted that in the Ex.D1 to 12 photographs, she and her family members are not appearing. She accepted that prior to 1 ½ month from the date of death, deceased Lavanya was admitted to hospital as miscarriage was caused to her and thereafter deceased Lavanya came to parental house for taking rest. She accepted that at the time of marriage of her daughter with accused No.1, the parents and brother of accused No.1 were residing at Hassan. She accepted that the accused No.1 and her daughter were residing at Mandya separately and thereafter at Jakkuru for a period of one year. She accepted that her daughter and accused No.1 were residing in the house of her elder daughter situated at 26 S.C.No.1075/2015 Amruthnagar. She denied the suggestion that the accused No.1 and her deceased daughter started to reside separately since there is a difference of a opinion between the deceased daughter and her elder daughter Latha. The Copy of Pan Card and original Employment Card were confronted and after admitting the contents same are marked as Ex.D13 and Ex.D14. She pleads ignorance that her deceased daughter objecting the accused No.1 to meet his parents. She denied the suggestion that her deceased daughter used to take treatment in the hospital as she was suffering from Anaemia. She denied the suggestion that her deceased daughter mentally depressed due to abortion and continuous ill health. She pleads ignorance that her deceased daughter went to Dharmasthala without informing anybody. She denied the suggestion that her deceased daughter committed suicide for want of peace of mind.
16. Further, the learned counsel for accused cross examined this with regard to omissions appeared in her chief examination and this witness admits that she has 27 S.C.No.1075/2015 not given the statement before the Police stating that the accused No.1 pressed the neck of her deceased daughter, the accused No.1 came to their house at Mandya after 15 days, information given by her daughter with regard to demand of money made by the accused No.1, abuse made by the accused No.4 to her daughter through her phone, conveying the birthday wishes by her son, arrival of her daughter to the house situated at Amruthanagar from Mejestic and non receipt of phone calls by the mother of accused No.1. She denied the suggestion that the hall situated at Haripriya Hotel was booked for the purpose of reception and not for the purpose of marriage. She denied the suggestion that the accused No.1 never received dowry in the form of cash and gold.
17. P.W.3-Lathashree is the sister of deceased Lavanya, who in her chief-examination deposed that the marriage of Lavanya solemnized with accused No.1 on 17.10.2010 and prior to that both were in love. At the time of marriage a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs and golden ornaments were given to the accused No.1. After 28 S.C.No.1075/2015 marriage, the accused No.1 and her Sister Lavanya were residing at Mandya and thereafter shifted to the Bengaluru. The accused No.1 and her sister Lavanya were residing in her house and during their stay the accused No.1 used to pick up quarrel with Lavanya directing to bring cash. She along with her husband and also her parents have advised the accused No.1. The accused No.1 and her sister were residing with them for 1 ½ year and thereafter shifted to Jakkur. During their stay in Jakkur house, the accused No.1 always giving torture at the instance of accused No.2 to 4. Her sister used to infrom the harassment meted out by the accused No.1 through phone and also used to inform her about the arrival of the accused No.1 to the house at late night and accused No.1 was not returning to the house durng night. Prior to 5 months from the date of death of her sister, the accused No.1 and her sister shifted their residence to Amruthanagar and at that time, her sister fell ill and went to her parental house at Mandya to take rest. On 11.06.2015 her sister came from Mandya to Bengaluru so as to attend CET Exam, 29 S.C.No.1075/2015 when her sister called the accused No.1 through phone, the phone of the accused No.1 was switched off and said fact was informed to her mother. Her mother was informed the said fact and thereafter she tried to contact her sister through phone and her sister not answered the phone. On the next day her cousin informed her about the death of Lavanya. Thereafter she rushed to the house of her sister situated at Amruthanagar wherein she found the dead body was lying on the floor. In view of the harassment given by the accused No.1 to 4 and also insult with the name of caste, Lavanya has committed suicide. Further she deposed that her sister used to write diary. The marriage photographs as well as dairy identified by this witness.
18. During the course of cross-examination of defence counsel she admits that the accused No.1 and her sister got married in Temple. She pleads ignorance that since her parents not agreed for their marriage, the accused No.1 and her sister Lavanya went to temple and got married. She pleads ignorance that the 30 S.C.No.1075/2015 accused No.1 and her deceased sister started to reside in the separate house after marriage in the temple. She denied the suggestion that her parents have performed the Reception and not marriage. It was further elicited that Ex.P.8(a) is not a signature and it is the name written by deceased Lavanya. Her house situated about ½ km away from the house of her sister. The fact of death of her sister informed to her at about 4.15 to 4.30 a.m. During further cross-examination it was elicited from her mouth that the police have recorded her statement after 5 to 6 hours from the death of her sister. Further it was elicited that apart from the police one officer has also recorded her statement. Further omissions appeared in the chief examination of this witness is confronted to her and she admits that she has not given statement before the police stating that she and her husband advised the accused No.1 not to pick up quarrel, demand to bring money, failure on the part of accused No.1 to look after her sister, the failure on the part of accused No.1 to return to house in the night regularly, attempt on the part of her sister to 31 S.C.No.1075/2015 contact the accused No.1 through phone, keeping of mobile phone in switch off mode by the accused No.1, non receipt of call by her deceased sister, the demand on the part of accused No.1 to bring money when her sister was in Mandya, pressing of neck, assault made by the accused No.1 to her sister. She denied the suggestion that deceased Lavanya mentally disturbed due to abortion caused to her. She pleads ignorance that the accused No.1 used lookafter deceased Lavanya very well during the primary stage of her pregnancy. She denied the suggestion that the accused No.1 and deceased Lavanya left her house as there was quarrel between her and deceased Lavanya. She denied the suggestion that her parents have not paid a sum of Rs.3 lakhs and golden ornaments at the time of marriage to the accused No.1. she denied the suggestion that her sister Lavanya committed suicide as she was desparated and she was not ready to lead her life from less income.
19. P.W.4-Mahadevappa M.C., in his chief-examination deposed that on 12.06.2015 at 5.30 am., he came to 32 S.C.No.1075/2015 the rented house of accused No.1 and found the dead body of Lavanya was lying on the floor and thereafter the police have shifted the dead body to the Ambedkar College. The police have conducted Inquest Panchanama in his presence. After treating this witnesses as hostile, the learned Special Public Prosecutor accord permission to cross examine this witnesses. During the course of cross examination of learned Special PP, he admitted the suggestion that the Tahasildar of Bengaluru North Taluk hd conducted inquest panchanama at Ambedkar Medical college in the mortuary of Ambedkar Medical college. During the course of cross-examination of defence counsel he admits that the contents of Ex.P.9 was written by the Police constable.
20. P.W.6-Siddaraju in his chief-examination deposed that CW1 is his brother in law and CW2 is his sister. The marriage of Lavanya performed with accused No.1 in Haripriya hotel at Mandya in the year 2010. During the marriage, a sum of Rs.3 lakhs cash and gold weighing 100 grams were given to the accused No.1. After the 33 S.C.No.1075/2015 marriage, the accused No.1 and Lavanya were residing at Mandya in the rented house and Lavanya was working as teacher in the Private School. In the year 2012-13, the accused No.1 and Lavanya have shifted their residence to Bengaluru and started to reside in the rented house. Further they have also resided in the house of the elder daughter of CW1. The accused No.1 used to harass the Lavanya by demanding more dowry. Deceased Lavanya used to inform the said fact to CW2 and CW2 inturn informed same to him. On 12.06.2015 at 10.30 pm., CW1 informed about the death of Lavanya by suicide. Thereafter he rushed to the house of accused No.1 situated at Amruthahalli wherein he found the dead body of Lavanya lying on the floor. Deceased Lavanya died due to the harassment of accused persons. The testimony of this witness has not been tested by the learned counsel for accused by cross examinig him.
21. P.W.5-Pradeep in his chief-examination deposed that, he know the CW1 and CW2 and their daughter Lavanya. One Jeevan is his friend and son of CW1 and CW2. 34 S.C.No.1075/2015 Deceased Lavanya belongs to Scheduled Caste and accused are not belongs SC/ST. The marriage of Lavanya solemnized with accused No.1 in the year 2010 in Haripriya hotel at Mandya. The accused No.1 and Lavanya were residing in Mandya and at that time the accused No.1 was working as cable operator. He was in talking terms with accused No.1 when accused No.1 and deceased Lavanya used to visit the house of CW1 and CW2. At that time deceased Lavanya used to tell him that accused No.1 giving harassment to bring money from parental house. The accused No.1 and Lavanya shifted to Bengaluru and he had visited the house of accused No.1 at Amruthalli along with Jeevan and at that time the deceased Lavanya used to inform him about the harassment caused by the accused No.1 to bring money. On 11/12-06-2015 his friend Jeevan informed about the death of Lavanya and thereafter he came to Bengaluru and went to the house of accused No.1 wherein he found the dead body. Lavanya has committed suicide as accused No.1 and his parents 35 S.C.No.1075/2015 harassed her to bring money. He identified the photo of the dead body of Lavanya.
22. During the course of cross-examination of defence counsel he pleads ignorance about the marriage of the accused No.1 and deceased Lavanya held at temple. He admits that he do not know the caste of the accused No.1 and also the marriage talks held at the time of marriage of accused No.1 with Lavanya. He admits that his friend Jeevan completed ITI course after PUC and he completed B.A. He admits that he is the resident of Shankar Nagar and Jeevan is resident of K.H.B Colony. He denied the suggestion that K.H.B Colony faraway from Shankar Nagar. Further it was elicited that he and Jeevan are studied in different college. He denied the suggestion that CW1 is his relative.
23. P.W.8-Dasegowda, the then owner of rented house where the accused No.1 and deceased Lavanya were reisidng together which is situated at Navyanagar of Jakkur, who in his chief-examination deposed that the accused along with deceased have taken the house on 36 S.C.No.1075/2015 rent in the year 2013 and during their stay they live happily and stayed in the said house upto one year and they vacated the house in the month of January 2015. Thereafter one fine day, the police have came to him and informed about the death of deceased Lavanya. He informed the police that the accused No.1 and deceased Lavanya were taken his house on rent. After treating this witness as hostile, the learned Special PP accord permission to cross examine this witness. During the course of cross examination of learned Special PP, he denied the suggestion that during the stay of accused No.1 and Lavanya in his rented house, they used to pick up quarrel upto midnight.
24. P.W.13-Kannappa is the owner of rented house where the accused No.1 and Lavanya stayed together which is situated at Amurthalli, who in his chief-examination deposed that the accused No.1 and deceased Lavanya were residing in the said house upto one month and subsequently they went to their native and after one month they came back and started to live in the said house. Thereafter one fine day, when he went to buy 37 S.C.No.1075/2015 milk, the public have gathered near the house and informed him about the commission of suicide by Lavanya and thereafter he informed the same to the police. After treating this witness as hostile, the learned Special PP accord permission to cross examine this witness. During the course of cross examination of learned Special PP, he denied the suggestion that on 11.06.2015 the accused No.1 picked up quarrel with deceased Lavanya during the night hours and his son advised the accused No.1 and Lavanya. He denied the suggestion that the accused No.1 regularly used to harass deceased physically and mentally.
25. P.W.14-K.Shivakumar is the attesting witness to the Ex.P.21/spot panchanama who turned hostile to the case of prosecution and after treating this witness as hostile, the learned Special PP accord permission to cross examine this witness. During the course of cross examination of learned Special PP, he admitted suggestion that on 12.06.2015 the police have prepared Ex.P.25/Spot panchanama and obtained his signature at the place of incident after read over the 38 S.C.No.1075/2015 contents of the same. He denied the suggestion that at the time of conducting of Ex.P.25/Mahazar, the police have seized one dairy and death note in his presence. He admitted the suggestion that on the previous night he saw the quarrel between deceased Lavanya and accused No.1 and he advised them to set right the issue in the morning. He admits that on the next day when he visited their house, the dead body was found lying on the floor and at that time accused No.1 was present in the house.
26. P.W.15-Smt.Muniyamma is the another attesting witness to the Ex.P.25/Spot mahazar who in her chief- examination deposed that the police have not prepared panchanama in her presence. The signature appearing on the Ex.P.25 was obtained by the policce when the police came near her house. After treating this witness as hostile, the learned Special PP accord permission to cross examine this witness. During the course of cross examination of learned Special PP, she denied the suggestion that the police have prepared Ex.P.25/Spot 39 S.C.No.1075/2015 mahazar on 12.06.2015 at 11.00 am., and recovered Ex.P.8/Dairy in her presence.
27. P.W.7-Ramesh Acharya, the Managing Partner of Haripriya Hotel, Mandya in his chief-examination deposed that he is running Haripriya Hotel at Mandya since 25 years. He had given the banquet hall situated in hotel on rent for the reception ceremony of daughter of CW1. He identified the notice issued by the ACP and reply issued by him as per Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14. The evidence of this witness is not tested by cross examining him.
28. P.W.9-Dr.B.M.Nagaraj, the Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru, who in his chief- examination deposed that he had conducted Post- mortem over the dead body of deceased Lavanya and issued Post-mortem report to the police as per Ex.P.16 and also opined that the cause of death due to asphyxia consequent to hanging. He identified the sample seal as per Ex.P.17.
40 S.C.No.1075/2015
29. P.W.11-Smt.Anitha Lakshmi, the then Women Police Constable of Amruthalli Police Station who in her chief- examination deposed that she was entrusted with the duty of sentry to the dead body and after conducting inquest by the Tahasildar she was escorted the dead body to the Ambedkar Hospital as per the direction of her higher official and handed over the dead body to the father by obtaining receipt. The report filed by this witness is marked as Ex.P.21. During the course of cross-examination of defence counsel it was elicited from her mouth that the inquest panchanama was written by the police on the dictation of Tahasildar.
30. P.W.12-Vittal Nyamegowda, the then Police constable of Amruthalli Police Station who in his chief-examination deposed about carrying of FIR along with complaint before the Court. This witness identified the FIR and his report as per Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.23.
31. P.W.10-M.Parameshwara Upadhyaya, the then Police constable of Amruthhalli Police Station, who in his chief- examination deposed about production of two sealed 41 S.C.No.1075/2015 cover before the FSL and obtaining acknowledgement for the same. This witness identified the acknowledgement, passport and report as per Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.20.
32. P.W.17-Srinivasraj, the then Police Inspector of Amruthhalli Police Station, who in his chief-examination deposed about registration of case on the basis of complaint.
33. P.W.18-V.Muniyappa the then Tahasildar of Yelahanak Taluk office, who in his chief-examination deposed that on 12.06.2015 he received phone call from Amruthhalli Police Station with a request to conduct inquest over the dead body of deceased Lavanya. He had shown the cloths of the dead body along with the golden ornaments to the father of deceased. The parents are not in a position to give their statement. Thereafter he dispatched the dead body to the hospital for conducting post-mortem. On 17.06.2015 he had recorded the statement of parents, sisters and relatives in his office. In the statement they have stated that the 42 S.C.No.1075/2015 deceased has committed suicide due to the ill- treatment given by the accused persons. The inquest panchanama prepared by this witness is marked as Ex.P.9. During the course of cross-examination of defence counsel he accepted that the Ex.P.9 is not contains his handwriting. Further he accepted that the name of the caste which is alleged to be used by the mother in law of deceased has not been mentioned.
34. P.W.16- Y.Nagaraju, the then ACP of Sampigehalli Sub-
Division is the investigating officer of this case in his chief-examination deposed that he had visited the place of incident, prepared Spot Mahazer. Further he had sent requisition to Tahasildar to conduct Inquest, apprehending of accused and his production before this Court. During the course of cross-examination of defence counsel it was elicited from his mouth that he had no impediment to produce the panchanama and recovered dairy before the Court as on the date of its seizure. He denied the suggestion that the panchanama was prepared on 15.06.2015. During the course of further chief-examination by learned Special 43 S.C.No.1075/2015 Public Prosecutor the Ex.P.43 which is the permission issued by the DCP is marked before this Court. During the course of further cross-examination of defence counsel it was elicited from his mouth that the permission letter was received by him on 17.06.2015.
35. P.W.19-Chandrika.G, the then Scientific officer of FSL, Madiwala in her chief-examination deposed about scientific verification of disputed handwritings along with admitted handwritings found in the Ex.P.8/Dairy which contains the death note marked as Ex.P.8(a) and after scientific verification she had issued Ex.P.27/Report and opined that the person who wrote the admitted writings has also wrote the questioned writings. The questioned writings are marked as Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31 and admitted writings are marked as Ex.P.32 to Ex.P.38. The enlarged photo of the admitted and disputed letters are marked as Ex.P.39 to Ex.P.42. During the course of cross-examination of defence counsel, she admitted that she has not given the report with regard to signature appearing on the Ex.P.8. 44 S.C.No.1075/2015
36. Upon careful perusal of materials available on record it is clearly discloses that the evidence of PW1 to PW19 are available on record to consider the allegation of prosecution to connect the accused persons for the alleged offence of subjected the deceased to cruelty to bring dowry, abetment and causing dowry death.
37. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 is corroborated with the evidence of PW4 to PW8 and same is sufficient to prove the commission of offence by the accused persons. The evidence of PW13 to PW15 though they turned hostile to the case of prosecution, their evidence can be considered to the extent they supports the version of prosecution. The contents of Ex.P.8 corroborates the version of parents and relatives of deceased Lavanya and accordingly prayed for convict the accused persons.
38. Per contra, the learned counsel for accused would submit that, the evidence of PW1 to PW8 cannot be considered under law as they are the interested 45 S.C.No.1075/2015 witnesses. The allegation of cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before the death is not established in this case. The Ex.P.8/Dairy was planted to falsely implicate the accused. The place of incident and seizure of Dairy are not proved. The witnesses examined before this Court are all interested witnesses and their evidence is not sufficient to prove the ingredients of section 498(A), 304(B) and 109 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. Further there is a material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The report of handwriting expert is not a conclusive proof and cannot be relied. Accordingly, prayed for acquit the accused.
39. With the rival contentions urged by the both sides, it is just and necessary to go through the materials available on record. As I have already stated above it is not in dispute that the accused No.1 and deceased Lavanya are the husband and wife and they were in love prior to their marriage. Further it is not in dispute that deceased Lavanya died due to hanging in the house of accused No.1 within the seven years from the 46 S.C.No.1075/2015 marriage. The caste of accused persons as well as the caste of deceased is not in dispute. The accused specifically contended that he and deceased Lavanya married each other in the Ganapathi temple, as the parents of deceased Lavanya are not agreed for their love. The allegation of subjected the deceased Lavanya to cruelty, harassment to bring more dowry and abetment on the part of accused No.3 and 4 is seriously disputed on the ground that, the deceased Lavanya has committed suicide due to mental depression on account of abortion caused to her.
40. Before going into the discussion on the other aspect of the matter, it is proper to analyze the law on subjecting a married woman to cruelty and dowry death. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 498A are as follows;
(1) The woman was married.
(2) She was subjected to cruelty;
(3) Such cruelty consisted in-
(i) any wilful conduct as was likely to drive such woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or 47 S.C.No.1075/2015 danger to her life, limb or health whether mentally or physically;
(ii) harm to such woman with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on account of failure of such woman or any of her relations to meet the unlawful demand;
(iii) the woman was subjected to such cruelty by her husband or any relation of her husband.
41. Section 304-B IPC, which defines, and provides the punishment for dowry demand, reads as under:
"304-B.Dowry death--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death', and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation--For the purpose of
this sub section, 'dowry' shall
have the same meaning as in
Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
48 S.C.No.1075/2015
(2) Whoever commits dowry
death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."
42. Section 304-B (1) defines 'dowry death' of a woman. It provides that 'dowry death' is where death of a woman is caused by burning or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage, and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with demand for dowry. Sub- clause(2) provides for punishment for those who cause dowry death.
43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2015) 5 SCC 201 (Major Singh v. State of Punjab) held as follows;
"10. To sustain the conviction under Section 304-B of IPC, the following essential ingredients are to be established:
i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury 49 S.C.No.1075/2015 or otherwise than under a 'normal circumstance';
ii) such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage;
iii) she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;
iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry; and
v) such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death."
44. When the prosecution shows that 'soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry', a presumption of causation arises against the accused under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Thereafter, the accused has to rebut this statutory presumption.
Section 113-B, Evidence Act reads as under:
"113-B. Presumption as to dowry death--When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection 50 S.C.No.1075/2015 with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation-For the purpose of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)"
45. Section 304-B read along with Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that once the prosecution has succeeded in demonstrating that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death, a presumption shall be drawn against the said persons that they have caused dowry death as contemplated under section 304-B IPC. The said presumption comes with a rider in as much as this presumption can be rebutted by the accused on demonstrating during the trial that all the ingredients of Section 304-B have not been satisfied.
46. In the backdrop of the above relevant provision of law and also principles laid down in the above said 51 S.C.No.1075/2015 judgments, the case on hand is to be decided. Before going into the discussion on the other aspect of the matter, it is just and proper to go through the contents of Ex.P.1/complaint for better appreciation of the facts of this case which reads as follows;
"ಈ ಮರಲಕ ನನನ ಹಮಳನವದಮನಲದರ ನನನ ಟಮಚರ ದ ನರಮತತರಗದನ. ನನಗ ಮರರನ ಹಣನ ಆಗದನ ಣ ಮಕಲಳನ ಹಗರ ಒಲದನ ಗಲಡನ ಮಗ ಇರನತತನ. ನನನ ಎರಡನಮ ಮಗಳದ ಲರಣಡ ಎಲ.ಎನ, 31 ರಷರ ಈಕ M.Sc., ದ , ಈಕ ಸನಮರನ 5 ರಷರಗಳ B.Ed ವಡಸಲಗ ಮಡದನ ದ ಖಸಗ ಹಲದ 2010 ರ ಸಲನಲ ಮಲಡಡದಲ ವಸವದನ ಕಲಪನಯಲ ಕಲಸ ಮಡಕರಲಡದದ(ಮರನಗರ ವಸ) ರಮ ಪ ಪಸದ ಎಲಬತ ನನನ ಮಗಳಗ ಪರಚಯವಗ ಪಪಮತಸದದರಲದ ನವ ಮತನತ ಅರರ ಮನಯರರನ ಒಪಪ 17/10/2010 ರಲದನ ಮದನವ ಮಡದವ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ ರರದಕಣಯಗ 3,00,000/- ರರ ಹಣದ ಸನಮರನ 100 ಗಪಲ ತರಕದ ಸರ, ಉಲಗನರ, ಓಲಗಳನನ ನ ಕರಟನ ಷ ಮಲಡಡದ ಹರಪಪಯ ಹರಮಟಲನ ಚಣಕಡ ಹಲ ನಲ ಮದನವ ಮಡಕರಟಷವ. ಮದನವಯದ ನಲತರ ನನನ ಮಗಳನ ತನನ ಗಲಡನರಲದಗ 2010-2012 ರರರಗ ಬಮರ ಮನಯಲ ಮಲಡಡದಲ ವಸವದದರನ. 2012 ರ ಸಲನಲ ನನನ ಅಳಯ ರಮಪ ಪಸದಅರರ ತಲದ ತಯಯರರನ ಹಸನದ ಮನ ಖಲ ಮಡಕರಲಡನ ಲಗಗರ ಮನಯಲ ವಸವಗದರ. ನನನ ಅಳಯನ ತಲದ ತಯಯರರನ ತನನ ಮಗನಗ ಪಸಲಯಸ ಬಲಗಳರರಗ ಕರಸಕರಲಡರನ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ ನನನ ಮಗಳನ ಲರಣಡ ತನನ ಗಲಡನರಲದಗ ನನನ ಹರಯ ಮಗಳದ ಲತಶಪಮ ರರರ ಮನ ಅಮಮತ 52 S.C.No.1075/2015 ದ ವಸವಗದದರನ. ಸನಮರನ 1 ರಷರ ಕಲ ನಗರದಲ ಇದನ ವಸವದದರನ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ ನನನ ಮಗಳನ ಲರಣಡಳಗ ಸಲಸರ ವಚರದಲ ಮನಸತಪವಗ ಜಗಳ ಮಡಕರಲಡದದನನ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ ಪಲಮಸರಗ complaint ಕರಟಷದದ ನ ಪಲಮಸರನ ಬನದದವದ ಹಮಳ ನನನ ಅಳಯ ರಮ ಪಪಸದ ನನನ ಮಗಳಗ ತರಲದರ ಕರಡನವದಲಲ ಎಲದನ ತಳಸದರ ಮಮರಗ ರಜಮ ಮಡ ಕಳನಹಸದರನ. ಆಗಲರ ಸಹ ಗಲಡ ಹಲಡತ ಜಗಳ ಮಡನತತದದರನ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ ನನನ ಅಳಯನ ತಲದ ತಯ, ತಮಮ ಅರರ ಸಲಬಲಧಕರ ಪ ಪಚರಮದನಯಲದ ಇನರ ನ ಹಚಶನ ರರದಕಣ ವಚರದಲ ಕರನಕನಳ ಕರಟಷದರ.
ಈ ವಚರದಲ ನನನ ಮತನತ ನನನ ಹಲಡತ ನನನ ಮಗಳಗ ತರಲದರ ಕರಡದಲತ ಪಲಚಯತ ಮಡದವ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ ಸಹ ನನನ ಮಗಳ ಗಲಡ ಕರಲ ಮಡ ಮನಗಸನತತಮನ ಎಲದನ ಬದರಕ ಹಕದದ. ಈ 5-6 ತಲಗಳ ಹಲದ ನನನ ಅಳಯ ICICI Bank ನಲ ಕಲಸ ಮಡನತತದದ ನ ಅದನನ ಷ Punjab National Bank ನಲ Sales ನ ಬಟನ Manager ಆಗ ಕಲಸಕಲ ಸಮರಕರಲಡನ ಆಗನಲದ ನನನ ಅಳಯ ನನನ ಮಗಳಗ ಕರನಕನಳ, ಮನಸಕ, ದಧಹಕ ಹಲಸ ಕರಡಲನ ಪಪರಲಭಸದನನ. ಹಮಗ ಸನಮರನ 10-12 ದನಗಳ ಹಲದ ಆಸಪತಪಗ ದಖಲನ ಮಡ ಚಕತನ ಕರಡಸ ವಧದಡರ ಸಲಹಯಲತ ನನನ ಮಗಳಗ ರಸಷ ಬಮಕನ ನಮಮ ಮಲಡಡ ಮನಗ ಕರದನಕರಲಡನ ಹರಮದವ.
ದ.11/06/2015 ರರರರಗ ನಮಮ ಮನಯಲಯಮ
ಇದದಳನ. ಈ ಮಧಡ ನನನ ಅಳಯ ಮಲಡಡದ ಮನಗ ಬಲದನ
ಇನರ
ನ ಹಚಶನ ಹಣರನನ
ನ ಅರರ ಸಲ ತಮರಸಲನ ತರರನ
ಮನಯಲದ ತರನರಲತ ಒತತಯ ಮಡ ಹರಮಗದದನನ. ಈ
ವಚರ ನನನ ಮಗಳನ ತಳಸದಳನ. ನನನ ಮಗಳನ ಮಲಡಡದಲದ ದ (CET Exam Teacher), ನನನ ಬಲಗಳರರಗ ಬಲದದನ 53 S.C.No.1075/2015 ರತಪ ಬಲಗಳರರಗ ಬಲದನ ತಲನಪರನವದಗ ತನನ ಗಲಡ mobile switch off ಆಗರನವದಗ ತಳಸರನತತಳ. ಆಗ ರತಪ 9.00 ಗಲಟ ಆಗತನತ.
ಈ ದರಸ ಬಳಗನ ಜರ ಸನಮರನ 4.00 am., ಗಲಟಗ ನನನ ಮಗನ ಮಬಧಲಗ ಪಮನ ಮಡ ನನನ ಮಗಳನ ಲರಣಡಳನ ಮನಯ suicide ಮಡಕರಲಡದಳ ಎಲದನ ತಳಸದರನ. ತಕಣ ನನನ, ನನನ ಮಕಲಳನ, ಸಲಬಲಧಕರನ, ಹಲಡತ ಸಮರ ಬಲಗಳರರಗ ಬಲದನ ತನನ ಮಗಳನ ವಸವದದ ಅಮಮತನಗರದ 4 ನಮ ಕಪಸ ಮನ ನಲ.71 ರ ಮನಗ ಬಲದನ ನರಮಡದಗ ನಲದ ಮಮಲ ಮಲಗಸತನತ. ನನನ ಮಗಳ ಸವನ ಬಗಗ ಅಳಯನಲ ವಚರಸದಗ suicide ನಮಣನ ಹಕಕರಲಡನ ಸತತರನತತಳ ಎಲದನ ತಳಸದರನ. ತಕಣ ಪಲಮಸ ಬಲದನ ಚಕ ಮಡದಗ ನನನ ಮಗಳನ ಬರದದದ ದ ಡಧರ ಇದನ ಇದರಲ ನನನ ಮಗಳನ ತನನ ಗಲಡನ ಹಲಸ, ಮನಸಕ, ದಧಹಕ ಕರನಕನಳದಲದ ಹಚಶನ ರರದಕಣ ತರಲಲಲವಲದನ ಚತ ತಹಲಸಯಲದ ನನನ ಮಗಳನ ಈ ರಮತ ಸತತದದ ನ ಇದಕಲ ನನನ ಅಳಯ ರಮ ಪ ಪಸದ, ಅಪಪ ಲಷಮಮನರಯಣ, ತಯ ಗಯತಪ, ತಮಮ ಸಲತರಮಷರರರ ಪ ಪಚರಮದನಯಲದ ಸತತದಳ. ನನನ ಮಗಳನ ಮತನತ ನವ Scheduled Caste (S.C.) ದ ಆದಕನರಟಕ ಜತಗ ಸಮರದರರಗದನ ಈ ಬಗಗ ನನನ ಶ ಮಗಳ ಅತತ ಗಯತಪ ಚನಚನ ದ ಮತನಡದನ ಈ ಬಗಗ ಕನರನನ ಕ ತಮ ಜರನಗಸಬಮಕಲದನ ನಡಯ ಳ ತತಮನ".
ದರರಕಸಕರಡಬಮಕಲದನ ಕರಮರಕರಳನ
47. On combined reading of the above contents of Ex.P.1/complaint it appears to me that, the PW1 in his 54 S.C.No.1075/2015 complaint has specifically mentioned about the existence of love affair between his deceased daughter and accused No.1 in the year 2010 and performing of their marriage on 17.10.2010 by giving cash of Rs.3 Lakhs and Golden ornaments weighing 100 grams towards dowry at Chanakya Hall in Hotel Haripriya situated at Mandya. In page No.2 of the complaint it is mentioned that, his deceased daughter and accused No.1 stayed together at Mandya upto 2012 and thereafter shifted to Bengaluru as the parents of accused No1 have moved to Leggere from Hassan District. It is further alleged that his deceased daughter and accused No.1 were stayed in the house of his elder daughter by name Lathashree situated at Amruthanagar for a period of one year and during their stay in the said house frequent quarrel was taken place between his deceased daughter and accused No.1 and complaint was also lodged before the police. When the accused No.1 correct to mend his ways, the police have settled the dispute. It is further alleged that his deceased daughter and accused No.1 started to reside 55 S.C.No.1075/2015 at Jakkur upto one year and during the said period the accused No.1 at the instigation of his parents subjected his daughter to cruelty by demanding dowry. He had convened panchayath and advised accused No.1. The accused No.1 threatened to take away the life of his daughter. Since his daughter admitted to hospital for her illness, he took his daughter to his house and his daughter was stayed in his house upto 11.06.2015. The accused No.1 used to visit house and insisting to bring dowry to repay his debts and said fact was informed by his daughter. On 11.06.2015 his daughter came to Bengaluru so as to attend CET exam and at about 9.00 p.m., she informed that she reached Bengaluru and phone of the accused No.1 was in switch off mode. On the next day, at 4.00 a.m., he received the information about the death of his daughter by hanging. It is the accused persons are responsible for the death of his daughter.
48. As I have already stated above, there is no quarrel on the part of accused so far as the function held in the Chanakya Hall of Haripriya Hotel, Mandya. The 56 S.C.No.1075/2015 contention of accused No.1 is that he and deceased Lavanya were in love and married each other on 16/09/2010 at Ganapathi Temple situated by the side of road leads to Pandavapura. The function held at Chanakya Hall is not a marriage and it is a reception ceremony.
49. With the above contention raised by the accused, it is just and proper to go through the materials available on record. Admittedly, during the course of cross- examination of PW2, 12 photographs were confronted to this witness and after admitting the contents of those photographs same are marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D12. The prosecution has also produced three photographs as per Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5 and Marriage Invitation Card as per Ex.P.6. The contents of Ex.D.1 to Ex.D12 discloses that, the deceased Lavanya and accused No.1 have figured together by wearing flower garland and the presence of their friends also can be seen from the said photographs. The Ex.D7/photograph discloses that the accused No.1 tying thali to the deceased and all the photographs were taken in the 57 S.C.No.1075/2015 Ganapathi temple. It is important to note that, PW2 who is a mother of deceased Lavanya admits the suggestion that the deceased Lavanya and accused No.1 were in love and married each other in the Temple. PW2 in her cross-examination voluntarily stated that the fact of their marriage infront of the temple was not within her knowledge till the marriage held in the Chanakya hall of Hotel Haripriya, Mandya. On the basis of contents of Ex.D1 to Ex.D.12 and from the answers elicited from the mouth of PW2, it can be safely held that the deceased Lavanya and accused No.1 were in love and married at Ganapathi temple in the presence of friends and the parents and relatives of deceased were not present in the said marriage.
50. It is important to note that the answers elicited from the mouth of prosecution witnesses clearly establishes the fact that, the marriage held between deceased Lavanya and accused No.1 in the temple is not within the knowledge of parents of deceased Lavanya as well as her relatives. The learned counsel for accused has failed to elicit favourable answers from the mouth of 58 S.C.No.1075/2015 prosecution witness to show that the parents and relatives of deceased Lavaya were aware about the marriage held at temple. The PW1 has come up with definite case that, since the deceased Lavaya and accused No.1 were in love, he had performed the marriage at Chanakya hall of Hotel Haripriya. The contents of ExP.6/Marriage Invitation Card which is a undisputed document clearly establishes the fact that on 17.10.2010 the marriage as well as reception ceremony was held at Chanakya Hall, Hotel Haripriya, Mandya. The Ex.P.6 clearly discloses that the marriage Muhurutam was fixed at 8.55 a.m. to 9.45 a.m., and reception was fixed at 10.00 a.m., to 2.00 p.m. Apart from that, the Ex.P3 to Ex.P.5 photographs which is not disputed by the accused clearly goes to show that the deceased Lavanya and accused No.1 figured together as husband and wife by wearing cloths which are usually wearing at the time of tying thali and Dhare Muhurtha. The Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4/photographs further discloses that deceased Lavanya and accused No.1 figured together by wearing cloths which are usually 59 S.C.No.1075/2015 wearing after performing Dhare Muhurtham or at the time of reception ceremony. The contents of Ex.P.3 to 6 goes against the contentions taken up by the accused No.1 and those documents sufficient to held that the marriage of deceased Lavanya was solemnized with accused No.1 in the presence of elders and well wishers and after the marriage, reception ceremony was also held. The accused No.1 has made an attempt to show that no marriage ceremony was held between him and deceased Lavanya as they were already got married at Ganesha Temple, but the said attempt came to be futile on the background of Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.6 produced on record.
51. So far as the payment of cash of Rs.3 Lakhs and golden ornaments of 100 grams towards dowry is concerned the PW1/father, PW2/mother, PW3/sister and PW6/uncle of the deceased Lavanya have specifically deposed before this court regarding the same. The learned counsel for accused has not succeeded to discredit the version of PW1 to 3 and PW6 regarding the payment of dowry in the form of cash and gold. The Learned 60 S.C.No.1075/2015 counsel for accused has not much cross examined the PW1 to 3 and PW6 regarding payment of dowry except putting suggestions. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 and PW6 is sufficient to hold that the marriage ceremony of deceased Lavanya was solemnized with accused No.1 by giving dowry.
52. It is important to note that, PW7/Ramesh Acharya, who is Managing Partner of Hotel Haripriya in his evidence deposed that the Chanakya hall was given on rent for the purpose of reception ceremony and not for marriage. The evidence given by the PW7 will not take away the evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding celebration of marriage of accused No.1 with deceased Lavanya, as the evidence of this witness goes against the contents of Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.6. PW7 in his evidence nowhere stated that he was present at the time of reception ceremony. Hence much importance cannot be given to the evidence of this witness.
53. As far as allegation of dowry harassment and subjected the deceased to cruelty is concerned, the PW1 to 3 in their chief-examination specifically deposed before this 61 S.C.No.1075/2015 Court that when the deceased Lavanya and accused No.1 were staying in the house of PW3 at Amruthanagar, Bengaluru, the accused No.1 used to pick up quarrel with the deceased Lavanya and also demanding to bring more dowry. Further the PW1 to 3 have also deposed before this Court that during the stay of deceased Lavanya and accused No.1 at Jakkuru, Bengaluru, the accused No.1 used to pick up quarrel with deceased Lavanya and harassed her physically and mentally and the said fact was informed by the deceased Lavanya to the PW1 and PW2. During the course of cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 nothing has been elicited from their mouth to disbelieve their version.
54. It is important to note that, the prosecution in order to prove the allegation of harassment or cruelty heavily relied on the Ex.P.8/Dairy and relevant page of the said dairy said to be death note which is marked as Ex.P.8(a). Ex.P.8/Dairy said to have been seized by the PW16/Y.Nagararju, the then ACP of Sampigehalli Sub- Division under Ex.P.25/Spot mahazar. It is important to 62 S.C.No.1075/2015 note that while marking the Ex.P.8/Dairy, the learned counsel for accused has not raised his objection while marking the said dairy. During the course of cross- examination prosecution witnesses, the learned counsel for accused seriously disputed the genuineness of Ex.P.8/Dairy on the ground that, it was created after the death of deceased Lavanya with the help of another daughter of PW1. For better appreciation of the facts, it is proper to extract the contents of Ex.P.8(a)/Death note which reads as follows;
Ex.P8(a) ಪಲಮಸರಗ /ಯರನ ನರಮಡನತತರ ರಮ /ಅರರಗ "ನನಗ ಏನಮ ಆದರರ, ನನನ ಸತತರರ ಅದಕಲ ನನನ ಗಲಡ ರಮ ಪ ಪಸದ ಎಲ ಅರರ ಅಪಪ, ಅಮಮ , ತಮಮ ಇರರನಗಳಮ ಕರಣರನ. ಇರರಗ ಜಮಮನನ ಸಗಬರದನ. ಇರರಗ ಶಕಯದರಮ ನನನ ಆತಮಕಲ ಶಲತ.
ಇರರ Mobile No. ರಮಪ ಪಸದ 9164444418
ಅಪಪ ಲಕಮಮನರಯಣ 9980535925
9141350226
ತಮಮ ಸಲತರಮಷ -9900350226
ತಯ ಗಯತಪ 9964791840
Address: Ramprasad.L
S/o Lakshminarayan
#8,Muneshwara Badavane,
Near Lakshmi Dry Clean,
Rajiv Gandhi Archode,
Laggere, Bengaluru.
ನನನ ಸನಳವ ರಮಗ ಮತ ತ ಗರತನತ. ಅರನಮ ನನನನನ
ನ ಬರ
ಹಮಳರನವದನ. ನನನ ಅನನಭವಸದ ನರಮರನನ ನ ಇರರನಗಳನ 63 S.C.No.1075/2015 ಅನನಭವಸಬಮಕನ. ನನನ ಸಯಲನ ಹರಮಗನತತದನ. ನನನನನ ನ ಹನಡನಕಬಮಡ. ನನನ ಅನನಭವಸದ ಮನಸಕ, ದಧಹಕ ನರಮರನನ ನ ಅರರನಗಳನ ಅನನಭವಸಬಮಕನ. ಆಗಲಮ ನನಗ ನಮಮ ದ.
ನನನ ಗಲಡನ Office Address:
PNB(Punjab National Bank) Met Life India Insurance Co.Ltd, # 75, 11, Vyalikaval, 2nd Main Road, Bangalore - 560003.
Ph : 080 -66931700 080 -23560359 ನನನ 5 ಗಲಟ ಅಷಷರಲ ಯರಗರ Call Madilla ಅಲದಪ ನನನಗ ಏನರಮ ಆಗದ ಎಲದರರ".
55. It is important to note that Ex.P.8(a)/Death note was subjected to scientific verification. The scientific officer attached to FSL, Madiwala i.e, PW19/Smt.Chandrika, who scientifically verified the said death note and submitted her report before this Court as per Ex.P.27 wherein the PW19 has specifically stated that the person who wrote the writings appeared in the Ex.P.8(a)/Death Note was also wrote the questioned writings are marked before this Court as per Ex.P.30 and 31. It is important to note that, during the course of cross-examination of PW19 nothing has been elicited from her mouth to discredit her version and to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P.27/Report. 64 S.C.No.1075/2015
56. The learned counsel for accused argued that, the contents of Ex.P.8 cannot be considered as a death note as there is no reference in the same with regard to alleged harassment and demand for dowry. With the above contentions raised by the learned counsel for accused, it is just and necessary to go through the contents of Ex.P.8(a). On careful reading of Ex.P.8(a) it is clearly discloses that, the said note was addressed to police or person who will saw the same and it is further mentioned that if she died, her husband Ramprasad, his parents and his brother are responsible, they did not get bail, her soul rest in peace if they punished. The mobile phone numbers and the address of all the accused was also mentioned. Her husband Ramprasad alone known her clue and he only called her to come over to Bengaluru, she is going to die and they shall experience the pain which she suffered. Further she mentioned the office address of the accused No.1. In the said note it is further mentioned that, "if she has not made phone call to anyone within 5 a.m., it means something was happened to her". The contents of 65 S.C.No.1075/2015 Ex.P.8(a) not contains the allegation of demand of dowry on the part of accused persons, but the mental and physical pain suffered by the deceased due to the act of accused No.1 has been specifically mentioned and due to the said harassment she decided to end her life.
57. The learned counsel for accused argued that the Ex.P.8/Dairy was subsequently created and seized in this case on 15.06.2015 and he drawn the attention of this Court towards the contents of Ex.P.26/PF. Further he argued that the seizure of Ex.P.8/Dairy is not proved before this Court as the material attesting witnesses to the Ex.P.25/Spot mahazar not supported the prosecution version.
58. With the above contention, I have carefully gone through the contents of Ex.P.25 along with Ex.P.26/PF. The contents of Ex.P.25/Mahazar discloses that the said mahazar was said to have drawn on 11.06.2015 at 11.00 a.m., to 12.30 p.m., in the presence of PW15 and PW21 and under the said mahazar the Ex.P.8/Dairy was 66 S.C.No.1075/2015 also recovered at the place of incident. The contents of Ex.P.25/Spot Mahazar and Ex.P26/PF discloses that both the documents were reached this Court on 15.06.2015. The delay in sending Ex.P.25 and Ex.P.26 is not forthcoming before this Court. It is important to note that PW14/K.Shivakumar, who is the son of house owner in his chief-examination deposed that the police have obtained his signature on Ex.P.25/Spot mahazar when they came near the house. PW15/Muniyamma in her chief-examination deposed that the police have obtained her signature when they came near her house and she is the neighbour of deceased Lavanya. PW14 and PW15 have turned hostile to the case of prosecution in connection with seizure of Ex.P.8/Dairy but they have specifically deposed that the police have came near the house of deceased Lavanya and obtained their signature. From the deposition of PW14 and PW15 it can be held that Ex.P.25/Spot Mahazar was prepared at the place of incident.
59. Whether the evidence of PW14 and PW15 can be considered under law or not is to be discussed. Hence 67 S.C.No.1075/2015 at this stage it is just and necessary to go through principles laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 5 SCC 777 (Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) wherein it is held as follows;
"It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examine him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof".
60. In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567 (C.Muniappan & Others. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu)it is held as follows;
"Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence".68 S.C.No.1075/2015
61. It is important to note that, PW16/Y.Nagaraju, the then ACP in his evidence specifically deposed that the Ex.P.8 was recovered at the time of preparing Ex.P.25/Spot mahazar. It is important to note that during the course of cross-examination of PW16 nothing has been elicited from his mouth to prove his animosity against the accused persons and his interest over the matter. Though PW14 and PW15 have not supported the case of prosecution their evidence can be considered to the extent of they supports the version of prosecution. The visit of PW16 to the place of incident and preparing of Ex.P.25/Spot panchanama is gets proved before this Court. So far as the seizure of Ex.P.8/Dairy is concerned the evidence of PW16 is sufficient, as the version of PW16 is corroborated by the PW14 and PW15 regarding his visit to the place of incident. It is important to note that the learned counsel for accused failed to elicit answers from the mouth of PW14 and PW15 stating that the signature of PW14 and PW15 was taken by the PW16 on 15.06.2010. On the background of the above principles, the evidence of PW14 and PW15 can be 69 S.C.No.1075/2015 considered to the extent they supports the version of prosecution regarding the arrival of PW16 to the place of incident.
62. As I have already stated above, PW14 is the son of house owner who is one of the attesting witness to the Ex.P.1/Spot mahazar and also said to have witnessed the quarrel taken place between accused No.1 and deceased Lavanya on the last night of deceased. This witness turned hostile to the case of prosecution during the course of chief-examination, but during the course of cross-examination of learned Special Public Prosecutor, he specifically admits that a quarrel was taken place between accused No.1 and deceased Lavanya on the last night and he visited the house and advised them to get resolve the dispute in the morning. It is important to note that the learned counsel for accused has not cross-examined this witness. On the basis of the testimony of PW14 it can be held that a quarrel was taken place between the accused No.1 and deceased Lavanya on the last night of her life. The said quarrel was also one of the reason to take decision to 70 S.C.No.1075/2015 end her life as mentioned in her death note. The testimony of PW15 corroborates the version of prosecution regarding subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment on the last night of deceased Lavanya.
63. It is pertinent to note that the accused has disputed that the police have not prepared spot panchanama at the place of incident and no dairy was recovered. According to me, the accused cannot be allowed to dispute place of incident as the place of death is unequivocally admitted by him in his reply and he can be allowed to dispute the contents of Spot Panchananma to the extent of seizure of Ex.P.8/Dairy contains death note.
64. As I have already stated above, the evidence of PW16 alone available on record to consider the case of prosecution so as to prove the seizure of Ex.P.8/Diary. Whether the evdence of PW16 is sufficient to prove the contents of Ex.P.25/Spot panchanama and seizure of Ex.P.8/Dairy or not is to be discussed. Hence it is just 71 S.C.No.1075/2015 and necessary to go through the principles laid down in the judgment reported in (2007) 7 SCC 625 (Girija Prasad(Dead) by LRS Vs. State of M.P.), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows;
"It is well-settled that credibility of witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. It is quite possible that in a given case, a Court of Law may not base conviction solely on the evidence of Complainant or a Police Official but it is not the law that police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a Police Official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of Police Officials merely because they belong to Police Force. There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of Police Officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the Court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence.72 S.C.No.1075/2015
On the background of above principles of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the evidence of PW16 can be relied to prove the seizure of Ex.P.8/Dairy.
65. Admittedly, there is a delay of two days in dispatching panchanama and PF to this Court. The delay in dispatching panchanama and PF to this Court not affects the case of prosecution for a simple reason that within span of two days it is very difficult to written the contents available in the diary that too when the family members were under deep mourn on account death of one of the member of family. Further, the diary contains personal details of deceased and accused No.1, continuous harassment on the part of accused No.1, raising of credit card loans by accused No.1, the accused No.1 become heavy debtor and he is irregular in returning home at night. The incident narrated in the diary is not pertain to single day and it contains the incident of many days and it cannot be written in a two days as contended by the accused. The diary further discloses that, the deceased had written the incident said to have taken place from the month of July 2014 73 S.C.No.1075/2015 and she decided to end her life on many occasions only due to harassment on the part of accused No.1. Apart from that, in some of the pages of the diary the signature of the deceased in English language also can be seen i.e., on 15/07/2013, 06/08/2013, 17/08/2013, 11/09/2013. Further, in the date i.e., on 31.07.2013 the signature is in the Kannada language and said signature is similar to the signature appearing in the Ex.P.8(a). The above signatures available in the above stated dates which are in the English language tallied with the signatures appearing in the Ex.D.13 Pan Card and Ex.D.14 Employment Card which are produced and relied by the accused No.1.
66. As I have already stated above, the Ex.P.8/Dairy was marked before this Court without any objection from the counsel for accused persons. The Ex.P.8/Dairy is of the year 2013 and from the month of January upto 23 rd of March 2013, the procedure of cooking various types of dishes were written and from the month of July 2013 to 11th September 2013 a notes were written in a Kannada sentence by using English letters. This Court 74 S.C.No.1075/2015 has gone through the entire notes, wherein it is clearly discloses that, the deceased Lavanya has mentioned about regular mental and physical harassment caused by the accused No.1 on various occasions and she was decided to end her life on many occasions and same can be seen from the period i.e., from 8 th June 2014 which is soon before her death. Further various allegations were made against accused No.1 regarding his late coming to home by consuming alcohol, his alleged debt, continuous harassment, attempt to kill her by pressing her neck on many times. The notes mentioned in the Ex.P.8/Dairy which are written in Kannada sentence by using English letters are not subjected to scientific verification. Since the counsel for accused not objected for marking Ex.P.8/Dairy in its whole, the notes written in Kannada sentence by using English letters can be considered incidentally to decide the allegation of prosecution. Apart from that, the greediness of accused No.1 towards money can be seen in the date mentioned the dairy i.e., on 23/08/2013.
75 S.C.No.1075/2015
67. It is important to note that PW6/Siddaraju said to be the uncle of deceased Lavanya has deposed about the cruelty and harassment given by the accused No.1 and death of deceased Lavanya on account of dowry demand. The deposition of this witness has not been challenged by the accused. The evidence of PW6 is also sufficient to hold the accused No.1 subjected the deceased Lavanya to cruelty and harassed to bring more dowry and in that connection Deceased Lavanya committed suicide.
68. The learned counsel for accused would argued that, the investigating officer of this case has not examined before this court due to his death and it is fatal to the case of prosecution. With the above contention it is just and proper to go through the materials placed on record. Admittedly, CW24/Ravi Kumar.S, the then ACP of Sampigehalli Sub-Division is the investigating officer who partly conducted investigation in this case. CW24 has recorded the statements of witnesses, received caste report and post mortem report and subsequently filed charge sheet. CW24 is not examined as he was 76 S.C.No.1075/2015 reported to be dead. Whether the non-examination of CW24 affect the case of prosecution or not is to be discussed. It is well established principles of law that non-examination of the Investigating officer didn't cause any prejudice to the accused persons or vitiate the case of the prosecution. We have to understand that the duty cast on the Investigating officer is limited and if he has discharged his duty without prejudice to the accused then his non-examination is not fatal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2004) 7 SCC 487 (State Of Karnataka Vs. Bhaskar Kushali Kotharkar) held as follows;
"for fair trial the Investigating Officer should be examined in the trial cases. If any of the prosecution witnesses give any evidence contrary to their previous statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC. or if there is any omission of certain material particulars, the previous statement of these witnesses could be proved only by examining the Investigating Officer who must have recorded the statement of these witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, if there is no serious contradiction in the evidences of the eyewitnesses or material evidence and no prejudice has been caused to the accused due to non-examination of the 77 S.C.No.1075/2015 I.O, then his non-examination doesn't render the trial fatal.
69. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (1996) 2 SCC 317 (Behari Prasad Vs. State of Bihar) held as follows;
"In the facts of the case the involvement of the accused in committing the murder has been clearly established by the evidence of the eyewitnesses. Such evidences are in conformity with the case made out in FIR and also with the medical evidence. Hence, for non examination of IO, the prosecution case should not fail. It will not be correct to contend that if an IO is not examined in a case, such case should fail on the ground that the accused were deprived of the opportunity to effectively cross examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to bring out contradictions in their statements before the police. A case of prejudice likely to be suffered by an accused must depend on the facts of the case and no universal strait-jacket formula should be laid down that non-examination of IO per se vitiates a criminal trial".
70. The Hon'ble High Court of Jharkand in the judgment reported in 2005 SCC OnLine Jhar 336 (Jai Kumar Mahto & Ors. Vs State Of Jharkhand), it was held as follows;
"Non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not always fatal to the prosecution unless it is shown that serious 78 S.C.No.1075/2015 prejudiced has been caused to the defence due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer but as it appears in the present case that nothing fatal has been shown so as to come to the conclusion that the defence was greatly or seriously prejudiced due to non- examination of the Investigating Officer and, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants on this score is rejected."
71. It is important to note that during the course of cross examination of PW2 and PW3, certain omissions which were occurred in the chief examination of PW2 and PW3 were confronted to this witness and she fairly admits that she has not stated the said facts before the Investigating officer. During the course of cross examination of PW2, the omissions appeared in her chief examination and she admits that she has not given the statement before the Police stating that the accused No.1 pressed the neck of her deceased daughter, the accused No.1 came to their house at Mandya after 15 days, information given by her daughter with regard to demand of money made by the accused No.1, abuse made by the accused No.4 to her daughter through her phone, conveying the birthday wishes by her son, arrival 79 S.C.No.1075/2015 of her daughter to the house situated at Amruthanagar from Mejestic and non receipt of phone calls by the mother of accused No.1. Likewise in the cross- examination of PW3, the omissions appeared in the chief examination is confronted to her and she admits that she has not given statement before the police stating that she and her husband advised the accused No.1 not to pick up quarrel, demand to bring money, failure on the part of accused No.1 to look after her sister, the failure on the part of accused No.1 to return to house in the night regularly, attempt on the part of her sister to contact the accused No.1 through phone, keeping of mobile phone in switch off mode by the accused No.1, non receipt of call by her deceased sister, the demand on the part of accused No.1 to bring money when her sister was in Mandya, pressing of neck, assault made by the accused No.1 to her sister.
72. Whether the above said omissions affect the case of prosecution or not is to be discussed. Admittedly, as per the legal provisions and various judicial precedents has made it clear that omission is one of the ways to 80 S.C.No.1075/2015 shake the credit of a witness. Not all omissions form a contradiction. Only those omissions which are significant and relevant in the context of the case are contradictions. The omission in the statement should not be so significant that it creates inconsistency between the statement infront of the police officer and the Court. In the case on hand, the above extracted omissions were found in the evidence of PW2 and PW3 and those omissions is not significant and relevant in the context of this case and it will not be considered as material contradiction to the evidence of PW2 and PW3 as they are fairly admits that they have not given the such statements before the police. Hence, the above omissions not in any way affect the case of prosecution.
73. It is important to note that the contents of Ex.P.16/Post mortem Report clearly discloses that the deceased Lavanya sustained scratch abrasions over back of right hand, back of left hand and over the left cheek and said injuries are ante-mortem in nature. During the course of cross-examination of PW9/Dr.B.M.Nagarj, he admits that the injuries could be caused by self if the person is 81 S.C.No.1075/2015 disgusted in life. The answers elicited from the PW9 is not in anyway come to the help of accused for a simple reason that the accused No.1 in his reply nowhere stated that prior to commission of suicide deceased Lavanya herself scratched cheek. It is the accused No.1 competent person to explain the circumstances of sustaining injuries by the deceased Lavanya but he failed to explain the same. Hence, the contents of Ex.P.16 is also come to the aid of prosecution to connect the accused No.1 for the alleged offence of subjected the deceased Lavanya to physical cruelty.
74. The evidence on record further discloses that the deceased Lavanya travelled to Bengaluru from Mandya so as to attend CET Exam and when she reached Bengaluru, she made an attempt to contact the accused No.1 through phone but accused No.1 kept his mobile phone in switch off mode. The fact of keeping phone in switch off mode is also admitted by the accused No.1 in his reply statement and the reason for switch off is stated as battery was drained. The act of the accused No.1 in keeping the mobile phone in switch 82 S.C.No.1075/2015 off mode inspite of knowing that his wife is all along coming from Mandya to Bengaluru is nothing but mental harassment.
75. It is important to note that the accused No.1 in his reply submitted before this Court has contended that on 16.06.2015 the family members of his wife had lodged complaint against him by keeping him in the police station for 3 days, which is falsifies from the contents of Ex.P.1/complaint, which was promptly lodged before the police on 12.06.2015 at 9.30 am., and Ex.P.22/FIR was reached this Court on the very same day at 2.20 pm.
76. On careful perusal of oral as well as documentary evidence, it is clearly discloses that accused No.1 subjected the deceased Lavanya to cruelty and harassed her by demanding more dowry. The PW1 has lodged complaint before the police stating that the accused No.1 at the instance of accused No.2 to 4 harassed deceased Lavanya. The material placed on record is not sufficient to prove the direct involvement of accused No.2 to 4. It is not the case of PW1 and PW2 83 S.C.No.1075/2015 or deceased Lavanya is that the accused No.2 to 4 have abetted the accused No.1 in their presence. The admissions available on record clearly discloses that the accused No.1 and deceased Lavanya never resided with accused No.2 to 4. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the ingredients of section 109 of IPC.
77. The accused persons have also charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which defines as under:
"(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,
(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property [knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member] shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine".84 S.C.No.1075/2015
78. On the background of the above provisions of Law the allegation made against the accused persons is to be considered. Admittedly, the prosecution has made specific allegation against accused persons stating that the accused persons are not being the members of SC/ST committed the offence of Dowry death of deceased Lavanya, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community which is punishable with imprisonment for life and as per section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the accused persons are liable to be punished. With the above contention raised by the prosecution, it is just and necessary to go through the principles laid down in the judgment reported in (2018) 1 SCC 742 (Asharf Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) wherein it is held as follows;
"the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)
(v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe.
79. In the case on hand, the witnesses examined before this Court nowhere stated the offence of Dowry death was committed against the deceased Lavanya 85 S.C.No.1075/2015 because she was a Scheduled Caste woman. However, there is no separate evidence led by the prosecution to show that the accused committed the offence on the basis of the caste identity of deceased. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the deceased Lavanya belongs to Scheduled Caste. Hence, I have no hurdles to hold that the prosecution has failed to connect the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)
(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
80. As I have discussed supra, though the accused have attempted to set up a story that the deceased Lavanya committed suicide by hanging due to mental depression in connection with miscarriage caused to her just prior to her death, but the accused have not placed any material before this court to prove the alleged mental condition of the deceased. The circumstances brought on record clearly demonstrates that, on the last day of her life she come over to Bengaluru so as to attend CET exam and the person 86 S.C.No.1075/2015 who is under mental depression cannot prepare himself to attend the exam that too by travelling from Mandya to Bengaluru. This aspect falsifies the defence version regarding mental condition of deceased Lavanya. The aforesaid chain of circumstances proves that there exists a live and proximate link between the instances of demand of dowry and the death of the deceased. The evidence of father, mother, sister, brother, uncle and friend of deceased brother and house owner son are corroborative and consistent and their evidence inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. The accused No.1 has failed to place any evidence on record to prove that the death was due to mental depression or unconnected with him. On the basis of the same it can be held that, the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death as she failed to bring sufficient dowry. The prosecution successfully proved that the death of deceased due to suicide took place within five years of her marriage. It has further proved that soon before her death she was subjected to harassment and cruelty pursuant to demands of dowry. 87 S.C.No.1075/2015
Since the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC stand satisfied, the presumption under section 113-B Evidence Act operates against the accused No.1, who deemed to have committed the offence specified under section 304-B of IPC. Under these circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that, the accused No.1 miserably failed to rebut the presumption drawn against him under section 113-B of the Evidence Act. It is important to note that, the accused No.1 has submitted his written reply wherein he has failed to offer explanation as to the cause of death as suggested to the prosecution witnesses. This aspect also creates doubt in the mind of Court with regard to the defence of accused No.1. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 and 2 are in the 'Partly Affirmative' and Point No.3 and 4 are in the 'Negative'.
81. Point No.5: In view of my foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(2) of
Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 is hereby
88 S.C.No.1075/2015
convicted for the offence punishable under Section.498(A) and 304-B of IPC.
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 is hereby
acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.3 and 4 are hereby acquitted for the offence
punishable under Sections 498(A), 304- B, 109 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.
The accused No.3 and 4 are set at liberty.
The bail bonds of accused No.1, 3and 4 and their surety stands cancelled.
To hear on sentence.
(Typed my dictation directly on computer by the stenographer, corrected, signed and then pronounced in open court on this the 18th day of January, 2023).
Digitally signed by
PRAKASH PRAKASH V
V Date: 2023.01.19
16:16:15 +0530
(PRAKASH.V)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
89 S.C.No.1075/2015ORDER ON SENTENCE Learned Spl.PP submits that offence of such types are increasing day by day and the court has to sent message to the society. The accused No.1 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) and 304(B) of IPC and punishment for the said offences are 3 years and imprisonment for life respectively. On these ground learned Spl.PP submits to impose maximum punishment.
Contrary to it, learned counsel for accused No.1 submits that the accused No.1 is the bread earner of his family consisting of age old mother and job less brother. Further, he argued that accused No.1 is jobless. Further submits that, he has no bad antecedents. On these ground learned counsel for accused No.1 prays for taking lenient view at the time of awarding sentence and minimum sentence be awarded to him.
I have heard the submission of learned counsel for accused No.1 and learned Spl.PP as well. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and 90 S.C.No.1075/2015 family background of accused No.1, I am of the view that ends of justice will be met if accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and also shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of IPC. Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The accused No.1 is hereby
sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 3 years and also shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-
for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC.
In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
The accused No.1 is hereby
sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of IPC.
Both sentences shall run
concurrently.
91 S.C.No.1075/2015
The Period of detention undergone
by the accused No.1 in judicial Custody for 127 days is ordered to be set off.
Digitally signed by PRAKASH V
PRAKASH V Date: 2023.01.19 16:17:29 +0530 LXX Addl. City Civil & SJ & Special Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Narayanaswamy
P.W.2 : Smt.Neelamma
P.W.3 : Smt.Lathashree
P.W.4 : Mahadevappa M.C
P.W.5 : Pradeep
P.W.6 : Siddaraju
P.W.7 : Ramesh Acharya
P.W.8 : Dasegowda
P.W.9 : Dr.B.M.Nagaraj
P.W.10 : M.Prameshwar Upadhyaya
P.W.11 : Smt.Anitha Lakshmi
P.W.12 : Vital Nyamgowda
P.W.13 : Kannappa
P.W.14 : K.Shivakumar
P.W.15 : Smt.Muniyamma
P.W.16 : Y.Nagaraj
P.W.17 : Srinivasraj
P.W.18 : V.Muniyappa
P.W.19 : Chandrika G.
92 S.C.No.1075/2015
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) & (b) : Signature of PW1, PW17 Ex.P.2 : Statements of witnesses Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P.3 to P.5 : Photographs of marriage Ex.P.6 : Marriage Invitation Card Ex.P.7 : Caste certificate of deceased Ex.P.8 : Dairy Ex.P.8(a) : Death Note Ex.P.8(a)(I) : Signature of deceased Ex.P.9 to P.12 : Photos
Ex.P.10(a) & P.12(a) : Signatures of PW16 Ex.P.9 (Repeatedly : Inquest panchanama marked) Ex.P.9(a) & P.9(b) : Signatures of PW4 & PW18 Ex.P.13 : Letter of Haripriya Hotel Ex.P.13(a) : Signature of PW7 Ex.P.14 : Requisition Ex.P.14(a) : Signature of PW7 Ex.P.15 : Statement of PW8 Ex.P.16 : PM Report Ex.P.16(a) : Signature of PW9 Ex.P.17 : Sample seal Ex.P.17(a) : Signature of PW9 Ex.P.18 : Acknowledgment Ex.P.19 : Passport Ex.P.20 : Report of PW10 Ex.P.20(a) : Signature of PW10 Ex.P.21 : Report of PW11 93 S.C.No.1075/2015 Ex.P.21(a) : Signature of PW11 Ex.P.22 : FIR Ex.P.22(a) : Signature of PW12 Ex.P.23 : Report of PW12 Ex.P.23(a) : Signature of PW12 Ex.P.24 : Statement of PW13 Ex.P.25 : Spot panchanama Ex.P.25(a) to (c) : Signature of PW14 to PW16 Ex.P.26 : PF No.23/2015 Ex.P.26(a) : Signature of PW16 Ex.P.27 : FSL Report Ex.P.27(a) : Signature of PW19 Ex.P.28 : Reasons for opinion Ex.P.28(a) : Signature of PW19 Ex.P.29 : Sample seal Ex.P.29(a) : Signature of PW19 Ex.P.30 to P.42 : Questioned writings Ex.P.30(a) to 42(a) : Signatures of PW19 Ex.P.43 : DCP order Ex.P.43(a) : Signature of PW16
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D.1 to D12 : Photos
Ex.D.13 : Color xerox Voter ID and PAN Card of
deceased
Ex.D.14 : Employment Card of deceased
Ex.D.15 : Statement of Lathashree
Ex.D15(a) : Signature of Lathashree
94 S.C.No.1075/2015
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
M.O.1 : Saree
M.O.2 : White Slip
M.O.3 : Black Colour Bra
M.O.4 : Blue underwear attached with Sanitary pad
M.O.5 : Red Colour Chudidar Top
M.O.6 : Green Colour Chudidhar Pant
Digitally signed by
PRAKASH PRAKASH V
V Date: 2023.01.19
16:17:48 +0530
(PRAKASH.V)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.