Bangalore District Court
Vidhana Soudha Police Station vs A-1 K.Muniraju S/O.Late Krishnappa on 28 February, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE LXI Addl. CITY CIVIL,
& SESSIONS JUDGE: BANGALORE CITY
Dated : This the 30th day of November, 2015
-: PRESENT :-
SRI. N.P.KOPARDE B.A., LL. B.(Spl.)
LXI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
SESSIONS CASE NO.346/2012.
The State of Karnataka by
Complainant:
Vidhana Soudha Police Station,
Bangalore.
Reptd. by Public Prosecutor,
City Civil Court Complex,
Bangalore.
V/s.
ACCUSED : A-1 K.Muniraju s/o.late Krishnappa,
49 yrs, r/o.No.22, 3rd Cross,
Devasandra village, K.R.Puram
Hobli, Bangalore-41.
A-2 B.M.Narayana s/o.late
Muniyappa, 42 yrs,
Chikkabasavanapura village,
K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore-41.
2 S.C.No.346/2012
1. Date of occurrence of 17-10-2008
offence
2. Date of report of 18-10-2008
offence
3. Date of Arrest of A-1 : 17.11.2008
accused A-2 : 18.10.2008
4. Commencement of trial 19.04.2012
5. Closing of trial 18.12.2014
6. Name of the Smt.K.R.Pramuda w/o.
complainant late R.Veeresh
7. First information 18.10.2008
report reached to the 4.10 P.M.
Magistrate
8. Offences complained U/S.306 of IPC.
of
9. Opinion of the Judge Accused Nos.1 and 2
are not found guilty
10. Sentence or order Accused Nos.1 and 2
acquitted as per the
Judgment
J U D G M E N T
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vidhana Soudha Police Station, submitted charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s. 306 of IPC. 3 S.C.No.346/2012
2. The brief case of the prosecution are as under :
The accused Nos.1 and 2 are residents of K.R.Puram, Devasandra and Chikkabasavanapura. The accused persons taking mediation and got provided plot No.181 measuring 40 x 25 feet and another plot No.173 measuring 30 x 40 feet in K.R.Puram Devasandra in the year 2004-2005 under sale deed to the deceased R.Veeresha.
Accordingly, the khatha was transferred in the name of deceased R.Veeresha. Since the value of the properties was hike, the accused Nos.1 and 2 started insisting the deceased to sell the properties to the persons stated by them and warned him not to sell the property to anybody. Due to the threat of the accused, the deceased disgusted with attitude of the accused on 17.10.2008 in rest room of press-club, Bangalore, committed suicide by hanging and before that he wrote letters stating that the accused were responsible for his death. In that regard, the case was registered against the accused in Cr.No.374/2008. On the basis of the letters written by the deceased to the Police Commissioner, Bangalore, for the offences punishable U/s. 506 of IPC against accused. On 18.10.2008 at about 9.15 a.m. the wife of the deceased 4 S.C.No.346/2012 Smt. H.R.Pramuda appeared before Vidhana Soudha Police and gave a complaint, on the basis of which, the case against the accused was registered in Cr.No.57/2008 for the offences punishable U/s. 306 r/w.34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, C.W.15 Ramachandraiah PSI submitted charge sheet to the Court.
4. On receipt of the charge sheet, the committal Court i.e. 8th ACMM, Bangalore took cognizance of the offences cited therein. The prosecution papers were furnished to accused Nos.1 and 2 as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the offence punishable U/s.306 r/w.34 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case to Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, who inturn registered case in S.C.346/2012 and pleased to makeover the case to this court for disposal in accordance with law.
5. On receiving the records, securing the presence of the accused nos.1 and 2, on hearing the prosecution as well as defence Counsel U/s.227 of Cr.P.C., since there are sufficient materials to frame charge for the offences punishable U/s.306 r/w.34 of IPC was framed by my learned predecessor in office on 19.4.2012, read over and 5 S.C.No.346/2012 explained to accused, wherein they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
6. The prosecution to prove its case, examined in all 17 witnesses as P.ws.1 to 17 and through them got marked 31 documents as Exs.P.1 to P. 31 and M.Os.1 to 5 and closed its side.
7. After closure of prosecution evidence, I examined accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., so as to enable them to explain the circumstances, appearing against them, wherein the accused denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them, and they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.
8. I heard the arguments of Learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Defence Counsel for the accused and perused the materials placed on record.
9. The following points arises for my consideration are :
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention threatened the deceased R.Veeresh to sell the plot No.181 measuring 40 x 25 feet and plot No.173 measuring 30 x 40 feet situated at 6 S.C.No.346/2012 K.R.Puram Devasandra to the persons to be proposed by them only and by persistent threatening the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide and on account of that, the deceased on 17.10.2008 in night hours in a rest room of Press Club committed suicide by hanging and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable U/s.306 r/w.34 of IPC?
2) What order?
10. My findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative.
Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following :
R E A S O N S
12. Point No.1: Out of 17 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1 Y.H. Viswanath, P.w.2 Sathosh are attestors of mahazar in Press-club restaurant. P.W.3 Byregowda attestor of Inquest panchanama. P.W.4 U.Krishna another attestor of Inquest Panchanama. P.W.5 A.Byregowda another attestor of Inquest Panchanama.
P.w.6 G.Girish the witness present at the time of inquest Panchanama. P.W.7 Smt.Pramuda wife of deceased and 7 S.C.No.346/2012 complainant in this case. P.W.8 Mallappa the Secretary of Press-club who said to have identified the hand-writings and signatures of deceased. P.W.9 S.Ravikumar PC 8493 of Vidhana Soudha police station who took the admitted writings and disputed writings to FSL, Bangalore. P.W.10 Syed Asgar Imam, the hand-writing expert in FSL Bangalore, who gave his report as per Ex.P.10. P.W.11 Bheema Naik PC 10616 who brought Jerkin, shirt, pant, banian of deceased after P.M. from Bowring Hospital and produced before SHO. P.W.12 Anilkumar a relative of deceased. P.W.13 DR. Bheemappa who conducted P.M. examination of deceased and issued P.M. report as per Ex.P.25. P.w.14-H.R.Narayana the then PSI, Vidhana Soudha police station, who conducted major portion of investigation. P.W.15-T.Ramachandraiah the then PSI of Vidhana Soudha police station, who submitted charge sheet to the Court. P.w.16-M.Manjunath the then PSI of K.R.Puram police station deposed about registering he case against the accused in Cr.No.374/2008 U/s.506 of IPC. P.W.17-C.Balaraj the then H.C. of Vidhana Soudha police station, who reduced the complaint in writing as per Ex.P.5.
8 S.C.No.346/2012
13. P.W.1 Vishwanth, P.W.2 Santhosh are the witnesses who attested the spot panchanama as per Ex.P.1. It is stated that they were working as suppliers in Press-club Canteen and deceased Veeresh was working as Cashier in Press-club. In the year 2008 since the said Veeresh committed suicide by hanging in staff room and in that regard the Police came to the press club and obtained their signatures and panchanama. They stated that the Police have not conducted any panchanama in their presence. They categorically denied the suggestion of the learned Public Prosecutor that on 18.10.2008 the Police got opened the door of the room and conducted the panchanama as per Ex.P.1 and seized a letter written by deceased Veeresh, two copies of the sale deed and plastic rope and black jerkin, a shirt, a chocklet color pant, white color banyan.
14. P.W.3 Byregowda, P.W.4 U.Krishna, P.w.5 Byregowda are the attestors of the Inquest panchanama. They denied the suggestion of learned Public Prosecutor that on 18.10.2008 the Police in presence of them conducted the inquest panchanama as per Ex.P.2 and 9 S.C.No.346/2012 recorded their statement as per Ex.P.2(b), P.2(c), P.2(d) respectively.
15. P.W.6 Girish who was the employee of press-club deposed in his evidence that the deceased Veeresh was working in the press-club for last 15 to 20 years as a cashier. In the year 2008 after his duty he had gone to his house at Laggere on the next day morning he received a phone call from press club as the deceased Veeresh committed suicide. Soon before his arrival to the press club, dead body of the deceased was being taken in Ambulance, he came to know that Veeresh committed suicide, but he does not know for what reason he did it. In cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor he denied the suggestion that he gave statement before the Police as per Ex.P.4 at the time of Inquest Panchanama and the Police seized two copies of sale deeds and letter said to have been written by Veeresh to Police Commissioner, Bangalore.
16. P.W.7 Smt.Pramuda the wife of deceased and complainant deposed in her evidence that her husband Veeresh was working as a Cashier in Press-club, Bangalore. In the year 2008 he committed suicide in office by 10 S.C.No.346/2012 hanging himself. On receiving the information by phone call, she went there alongwith her children, by that time, she was told that, dead body was taken to Bowring Hospital for P.M. examination, so she went there and saw the dead body of her husband. After completion of P.M. examination she took the dead body to K.R.Nagar of Mysore District and made cremation. She does not know for what reason her husband committed suicide and she has not given any complaint to the Police. She further stated when the Police asked her with regard to reason for suicide. She told before the Police as to she does not know anything about that and on the say of the Police, she affixed her signature on the complaint i.e. Ex.P.5. She categorically denied the suggestion of learned Public Prosecutor that on account of the threat given by the accused, her husband committed suicide and accordingly, she gave complaint before the Police praying to take action against the accused as per Ex.P.5.
17. P.W.8 Mallappa deposed in his evidence that he is the Chief Secretary of Press-club, Bangalore and he states that Ex.P.7 letter bearing his signature he cannot say as to the hand writings in AW1 were belonging to 11 S.C.No.346/2012 deceased Veeresh and he cannot identify as to the leave letters AW2 and AW3 and the hand writings of deceased Veeresha. He denied the suggestion of learned Public Prosecutor that he acquainted with hand-writings of deceased Veeresha and Aw2 and AW3 the leave letters are containing the hand-writings of deceased. He denied the suggestion that to help the accused he is deposing falsely.
18. P.W.12 Anilkumar the brother of the deceased deposed in his evidence that his brother Veeresh was working as a cashier in Press-club. After the marriage, he and other brothers separated from each other and residing separately. In the year 2008 his brother Veeresh committed suicide in Press-club. After knowing this fact, he and his wife and sons went there and saw the dead body, but he has not see any letter or document with the deceased and police did not record his statement and he does not know for what reason his brother Veeresh committed suicide. In cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor he denied the suggestion that on 18.10.2008 at about 7 a.m. one Byregowda who was working in Press-club by phone informed him as to his 12 S.C.No.346/2012 brother committed suicide in press-club, so he went there and saw his brother died by hanging himself in a rest room. In his waist there was one letter which was addressed to Police Commissioner that one Muniraju and Narayan gave life threat to him and with regard to deceit made by the accused. He further denied the suggestion that the letter mentioned in Ex.P.19 to 22 was in his waist, which the police shown him and he identified as to the hand-writings and signature belonging to deceased Veeresh and apart from that there were two zerox copies of sale deeds with deceased and accordingly he gave statement before the Police as per Ex.P.2.
19. P.W.13 D. Bheemappa deposed in his evidence that on 18.10.2008 on receipt of the requisition from Vidhana Soudha Police, on the same day in between 12.30 pm. to 1.30 p.m. he conducted the P.M. examination on the dead body of the deceased and mentioning the injuries found on the body, he issued the P.M. examination report as per Ex.P.25. In cross-examination by defence Counsel he denied the suggestion that he did not conduct P.M. of deceased. He stated that at the time of P.M. examination, the Police brought the plastic rope used for 13 S.C.No.346/2012 the commission of suicide was produced and he has not mentioned it in Ex.P.25. He admitted that he has not mentioned the length, width and measurement of M.O.1- Rope.
20. P.W.9 Ravikumar the then PC Vidhana Soudha police station deposed in his evidence on 4.3.2010 the I.O. directed him to took the admitted and disputed hand writings of deceased to FSL and accordingly, he took them to FSL and gave report to I.O. as per Ex.P.9. In cross-examination he denied the suggestion that on 14.3.2010 he was entrusted with working of taking admitted and disputed hand writings to FSL and he deposed falsely at the instance of his higher officers.
21. P.W.11-Bheema Naik PC 10616 states that on 18.10.2008 the I.O. directed him to shift dead body from Press club to Bowring Hospital for P.M. examination, accordingly, he took the dead body to Bowring hospital for P.M. examination and after P.M. examination he handed over the dead body to the wife of deceased Veeresha and then took the cloths from the dead body of the deceased such as Jerkin, shirt, pant and banyan and 14 S.C.No.346/2012 also ligature material to the Police station and produced before SHO and gave report as per Ex.P.23.
22. P.W.10 Syed Asgar Imam the Assistant Director of FSL Bangalore, deposed in his evidence that on 4.3.2010 the Vidhana Soudha Police send a suicide letter containing 5 pages which including questioned handwritings marked as Q-1 to Q-5, a leave letter and a letter containing 4 pages dated 13.10.2008. That he marked admitted hand-writings as AW1 to AW7 since the I.O. also marked them as AW1 to AW7. He further stated that on scientific examination of admitted hand- writings i.e. AW1 to AW7 and questioned writings at Q.1 to Q.5 and found that the person who wrote AW1 to AW7 himself wrote Q.1 to Q.5 and accordingly he gave report as per Ex.P.10 and he submitted the reasons for his findings which is marked at Ex.P.11.
23. P.W.14 H.R.Narayan the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Vidhana Soudha police station deposed in his evidence that on 18.10.2008 when he was SHO at about 9.15 A.M. C.W.1 gave oral complaint as per Ex.P.5 before him, stating that her husband committed suicide at Press- club at Bangalore. On the basis of which, he registered 15 S.C.No.346/2012 case in Cr.No.57/2008 U/s.306 of IPC. Then he went to Press-Club, Bangalore, where he secured two panchas C.Ws.2 and 3 and by using force opened door of rest room, where Veeresha hang himself with the help of plastic rope tying it to wooden turai of the roof. Then they get down the dead body of the deceased by cutting the rope. The deceased had worn a black color jerkin, a check shirt, chocolate color pant, white color banian, biscuit color underwear and he had some papers in the waist, among them there were letters addressed to the Police Commissioner, Bangalore and two copies of sale deeds. He conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.1 in between 10.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. and seized a letter addressed to Sri Shankar Bidari the Police Commissioner, Bangalore and two xerox copies of sale deeds i.e. Ex.P.19 to P.22 (letter addressed to Police Commissioner and Ex.P.27 and P.28 are two zerox sale deeds) then he sent the dead body of deceased for P.M. to Bowring Hospital, Bangalore through C.W.12. Thereafter, C.W.12 after P.M. examination at about 5.30 p.m. produced before him plastic rope, jerkin, shirt, pant banyan i.e. M.Os.1 to 5 and gave a report as per Ex.P.23. Then he recorded the 16 S.C.No.346/2012 statements of C.W.6 C.W.7, C.W.8 and C.W.9. Then he deputed PC 8741 for search of accused and on the same day, at about 5.30 p.m. the above Police constable produced accused No.2. Then he arrested the accused No.2 and sent him to the Hon'ble Court for judicial remand through PC No.5762 and HC-551. On 19.10.2008 he appointed HC 2939 and PC 9314 to trace out accused No.1. On 20.10.2008 he sent a letter to the President of Press Club, Bangalore, calling upon him to produce the correspondence made by deceased Veeresha with press- club. Then he secured three letters of deceased Veeresha addressed to President, Press Club Bangalore i.e. Ex.P.16 to P.18. He further stated that at the time of spot panchanama he found the deceased had copy of zerox letter written to Shankar Bidari the Police Commissioner, the death note and two xerox copies of sale deed. He further stated that he conducted the inquest panchanama of deceased in presence of C.Ws.4 to 6 as per Ex.P.2 and sized Ex.P.6, P.15, P.27 and P.28, then he marked the questioned hand-writings of deceased Veeresha in Ex.P.15 as Q1 to A5 and marked the hand- writings of deceased in Ex.P.16 to P.18 as AW1 to AW7. 17 S.C.No.346/2012 Then on 2.3.2009 he sent death note the letters of the deceased receiving from Press-club and Xerox copy of letter addressed to Shankar Bidari the Commissioner of Police to the hand-writing expert. Thereafter, the officials of FSL Bangalore asked for the original letter written by the deceased to Shankar Bidari Police Commissioner, he secured it from K.R.Puram police station and send it to the FSL, Bangalore. On 17.11.2008 the accused No.1 appeared before him alongwith copy of anticipatory bail order of learned FTC-II Court, so he arrested the accused and released him on bail. On 18.10.2008 he received P.M. report as per Ex.P.25 from Bowring Hospital and received paper cuttings i.e. Ex.P.20 and then he handed over further investigation to C.W.15 PSI Ramachandraiah.
24. P.W.15 P.Ramachandraiha, the then PSI, Vidhana Soudha police station deposed in his evidence that on 1.5.2011 he took over further investigation of this case from C.W.14 the FSL report was yet not received. On 24.6.2011 he submitted charge sheet to the Court.
25. P.W.17 C.C. Balaraj the then HC of Vidhana Soudha police station deposed in his evidence that on 18 S.C.No.346/2012 18.10.2008 at about 9.15 p.m. one H.R.Pramuda come to the police station to give complaint. As per the direction of PSI H.R.Narayaa he reduced the complaint of Smt.Pramuda to writing as per Ex.P.5.
26. From the evidence of the above witnesses, it can be seen that P.W.1 and P.W.2 the attestors of the spot panchanama have deposed about conducting of spot panchanama in their presence. But in evidence they re stated that they do not know for what reason the police obtained their signatures. In cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor they denied the suggestion that on 18.10.2008 the Police conducted spot panchanama and seized a plastic rope, a black color jerkin, shirt, pant, banian, two copies of sale deeds, letter addressed to Police Commissioner, Bangalore and accordingly, the police conducted mahazar as per Ex.P.1 in their presence.
27. P.Ws.3,4 and 5 the inquest panchas have totally turned hostile to the prosecution and denied the suggestion that on 18.10.2008 in presence of them, the Police conducted inquest panchanama as per Ex.P.2. P.W.6 Girisha cleaner in Press-club, Bangalore has not at all supported the case of the prosecution. He denied the 19 S.C.No.346/2012 suggestion of learned Public Prosecutor that he gave statement before the police as per Ex.P.4. P.w.7 wife of deceased Smt.Pramuda stated that she has not given any complaint before the Police as per Ex.P.6 and she denied the hand-writings of her husband on the admitted and questioned documents. P.w.8 Mallappa who was working with deceased in Press-club, Bangalore at relevant point of time has not supported the case of the prosecution. He stated that he cannot identify the hand-writings of deceased in AW1 to AW3. P.W.9 Ravikumar the PC stated about taking admitted hand-writings and questioned hand- writings to FSL, Bangalore as per the direction of SHO. His evidence is formal in nature. P.W.11 Bheema Naik PC as per the direction of I.O. he took the dead body of deceased from Press-club, Bangalore to Bowring Hospital for Post Mortem examination and after P.M. examination he handed over the dead body to the wife of the deceased and then brought clothes on the dead body and ligature material to the police station and produced before the I.O. giving report as per Ex.P.23, since the death of the deceased is not under dispute, the evidence of this witness will not attain much importance. P.W.12 20 S.C.No.346/2012 Anilkumar brother of the deceased has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. He totally turned hostile to the prosecution and denied the suggestion as to he gave statement before the Police as per Ex.P.24.
28. P.W.13 Dr. Bheemappa who conducted the P.M. examination on the dead body of the deceased and accordingly he issued P.M. report as per Ex.P.25. As already stated above, the death of the deceased due to hanging is not under dispute, so the evidence of this witness if formal in nature.
29. P.W.15 T.Ramachandraiah the PSI Vidhana Soudha police station deposes about filing of the charge sheet. Except filing of the charge sheet he has not conducted any investigation in this case. So, the evidence of this witness does not contain much importance. P.w.17 C.C.Balaraj the then HC deposes that on 18.10.2008 he reduced the complaint into writing as per direction of PSI Narayana.
30. So, the evidence of only P.Ws.10, 14 and 16 are material for discussion. The learned Public Prosecutor much relied on the evidence of P.W.10 and argued that the hand-writing expert P.W.1 examined the admitted 21 S.C.No.346/2012 documents i.e. Aw1 to Aw7 and Q1 to Q5 are in the hand- writings of same person, so the prosecution has been able to prove that threat given by the accused persons forced him to commit suicide and thereby the accused are liable for punishment U/s.306 of IPC. It is pertinent to note that simply because, P.W.10 has given his report as to writings in Aw1 to AW7 and Q1 to Q5 are all same persons, the court cannot come to the conclusion that Aw1 to Aw7 were in the hand-writings of deceased itself. First of all, the prosecution must prove that Aw1 to 7 were written by the deceased himself, unless and until Aw1 to 7 are proved to be written by the deceased himself, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the deceased himself wrote those letters on account of threat given by the accused, the deceased committed suicide. To prove the hand-writings of deceased, there must be evidence of some persons who are acquainted with hand-writings of deceased. In this case, the best persons say about the hand-writings of the deceased are P.W.7 Pramuda wife of deceased and the workers at press-club with deceased i.e. P.W.3 Santhosh, P.W.4 Byregowda, P.W.5 U. Krishna, P.w.6 Byregowda 22 S.C.No.346/2012 s/o.Anthonappa and especially P.W.8 Mallappa Chief Secretary of Press-club who used to receive leave letters etc. from the officials and staff of the Press-club, but unfortunately those persons have totally turned hostile to the prosecution. Without corroboration of any evidence of any of the witnesses acquainted with hand-writings of the deceased. The evidence of P.w.10 hand-writing expert cannot attain much importance. In this regard, I would like to rely upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2003)1 SCC 21 in case of Alamgir vs. State (NCT Delhi), wherein it has been observed that:
"Evidence Act 1972 - Sec.45 - Opinion of hand-
writing - Held can be relied on when supported by other evidence. Though there is no rule of law that without corroboration the opinion evidence cannot be accepted, but due caution and care could be exercised and it should be accepted after probe and examination"
In a Ruling reported in (1996)4 SCC 596 in case of Gopi Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
23 S.C.No.346/2012
"Expert evidence - Nature of - Held, is a weak type of evidence which cannot be safely relied upon without independent and reliable corroboration."
31. As per the prosecution case, the deceased prior to committing the suicide had sent a letter to commissioner of Police, Bangalore, seeking action against the accused persons, since they were threatening him. The said letter is marked at Ex.P.19 to 22 (which was containing four pages), the Commissioner in turn directed his sub-ordinates to Register case on the basis of it and accordingly, P.W.16 M.Manjunath Registered case against the accused in K.R.Puram police station Cr.No.374/2008 for the offences punishable U/s. 506 IPC. P.W.16 has deposed in his evidence that the said letter was brought before him by C.W.1 Pramuda and on the basis of which, he registered case against the accused. But later on he changed his version and deposed that the said letter came to his office from Commissioner's Office by tapal. In cross-examination by defence Counsel, he admitted that if any person gives complaint to the Police Commissioner, he should produce it before Tapal Section or personally he can give complaint to the Police Commissioner. In both 24 S.C.No.346/2012 circumstances, there must be an endorsement on the complaint with regard to receipt of the complaint and that thing has to be entered into inward section and a number should be given in that regard. He further admitted that the Police Commissioner by putting his endorsement on the complaint, direct either ACP or DCP to take suitable action and then ACP or DCP putting their endorsement should concerned police to take action by putting number in tapal section. The official in tapal section should enter particulars regarding date and date of dispatching etc in the concerned register. The person who received such complaint shall make initial with regard to the receipt of said complaint. He admitted in cross- examination that on Ex.P.19 to P.22 there is no endorsement of Police Commissioner Office, such as signature, number, endorsement etc and there is no mention on Ex.P.22 as to it came to the K.R.Puram police station by tappal from Commissioner Office. All these aspects go to show that it is doubtful to believe that the deceased himself had sent a letter to Police Commissioner's Office as there is no endorsement on Ex.P.19 to 22 with regard to its receipt and dispatching it 25 S.C.No.346/2012 to the K.R.Puram police station. So doubt arises as to whether the said document was written by deceased Veeresh or not. As already stated above, there is no material evidence to show that Aw1 to Aw7 were written by the deceased himself, since there is no corroborating evidence of the persons acquainted with hand-writings of the deceased. So, only on the basis of evidence of P.W.10 hand-writing expert, it is difficult for the court to come to the conclusion that Aw.1 to AW.7 and Q1 to A5 documents are written by the deceased himself.
So as to attract Sec.306 of IPC, there must be presence of means-rea which is necessary concomitant of instigation. The suicide must be a direct result of threat given by the accused persons. In this regard, I would like to rely upon decision reported in 2002 Crl. Law Journal 2796 (Supreme Court) in case of Sanjeev alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, it has been observed:
"Sections 306, 107 - Abetment of suicide - Proof -
Quarrel between accused and deceased - Accused telling deceased 'to go and die' - That itself would not constitute ingredient of 'instigation' - Presence of means rea is 26 S.C.No.346/2012 necessary concomitant of instigation - Fact that deceased committed suicide after two days of quarrel during which said words were uttered by accused - Would show that suicide was not direct result of quarrel - Suicide note left by deceased showing that he was in great stress and depression - Statement by his wife that he was frustrated man and was in habit of drinking- Held, charge sheet framed under S.306 against accused was liable to be quashed as ingredients of abetment were totally absent."
32. In this case, Ex.P.19 letter addressed to Shankar Bidari the Police Commissioner was said to have been written on 13.10.2008 and deceased committed suicide in the night hours on 17.10.2008. There is four days gap between the letter to Commissioner and act of suicide by the deceased. So, it cannot be said that there is direct nexus between the death and act of the accused persons. First of all, the prosecution has failed to prove that the admitted hand-writing and disputed hand writings are all the deceased himself. Moreover, there is no evidence of wife or relatives or colleagues who were working with deceased as to the accused were 27 S.C.No.346/2012 threatening the deceased. If at all the threat was given to the deceased he might have stated or given some clues to his wife about those aspects. But, the wife of the deceased P.W.7 has totally turned hostile to the prosecution, and she has not whispered anything about abetment of the accused to the deceased to commit suicide. Under such circumstances I am to hold that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I answer point no.1 in negative.
33. Point No.2 : Having regard to my above observations and findings on point No.1 in negative, extending the benefit of doubt to accused Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following :
O R D E R Accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under sections U/S.306 r/w.34 of IPC.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2 stand cancelled.28 S.C.No.346/2012
Accused Nos.1 and 2 are set at liberty M.Os.1 to 5 being worthless articles, are ordered to be destroyed, after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of November, 2015).
(N.P.KOPARDE) LXI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
29 S.C.No.346/2012ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION :-
P.W.1 - Y.H.Vishwanath
P.W.2 - Santhosh
P.W.3 - Byregowda s/o.Boregowda
P.W.4 - U.Krishna
P.W.5 - Byregowda s/o.Antholanna
P.W.6 - Girish
P.W.7 - Pramuda
P.W.8 - Mallappa
P.W.9 - S.Ravikumar
P.W.10 - Syed Asgar Imam
P.w.11 - Bheemanaik
P.W.12 - Anilkumar
P.W.13 - Dr.Bheemappa, HOD, Bowring & Lady
Curzon Hospital, Bangalore.
P.w.14 - H.R.Narayan PSI
P.w.15 - T.Ramachandraiah, PSI
P.W.16 - M.Manjunath PSI
P.W.17 - C.C.Balaraj, ASI
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE :- NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION :-
Ex.P.1 - Spot mahazar
Ex.P.1(a) - Signature of P.w.1
Ex.P1(b) - Signature of P.w.2
Ex.P.1(c) - Signature of P.W.14
Ex.P.2 - Inquest panchanama
Ex.P.2(a) - Signature of P.w.3
Ex.P.2(b) - Statement of P.W.3
Ex.P.2© - Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.2(d) - Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.2(e) - Signature of P.W.14
30 S.C.No.346/2012
Ex.P.3 - Statement of P.W.5
Ex.P.4 - Statement of P.W.6
Ex.P.5 - Complaint
Ex.P.5(a) - Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.5(b) - Signature of P.W.14
Ex.P.6 - Xerox copy of letter written by deceased
to Police Commissioner.
Ex.P.7 - letter of Press-club, Bangalore.
Ex.P.7(a) - Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.8 - Police Passport
Ex.P.8 - Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.9 - Report.
Ex.P.9(a) - Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.10 - FSL Report (Hand-writing expert)
Ex.P.10(a) - Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.11 - Reasons for opinion of P.W.10
Ex.P.11(a) - Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.11(b) - Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.11© - Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.12 & 13- Enlarged admitted and questioned writings.
Ex.P.12(a) - Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.13(a) - Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.14 - Sample seal
Ex.P.14(a) - Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.15 - Disputed hand-writings(Q1 to Q5)
Ex.P.15(a) - Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.15(b) - Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.15(c) - Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.15(d) - Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.15(e) - Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.16 - Admitted writings - 1
Ex.P.16(a) - Signature of P.W.10.
Ex.P.16(b) - Signature of P.W.14
Ex.P.17 - Admitted writings-2
Ex.P.17(a) - Signature of P.w.10
Ex.P.17(b) - Signature of P.W.14
Ex.P.18 - Admitted writings-3
31 S.C.No.346/2012
Ex.P.18(a) - Signature of P.W.10.
Ex.P.18(b) - Signature of P.W.14
Ex.P.19 - Admitted writings-4
Ex.P.19(a) - Signature of P.W.10.
Ex.P.19(b) - Signature of P.W.14
Ex.P.20 - Admitted writings-5
Ex.P.20(a) - Signature of P.W.10.
Ex.P.20(b) - Signature of P.W.14
Ex.P.21 - Admitted writings-6
Ex.P.21(a) - Signature of P.W.10.
Ex.P.21(b) - Signature of P.W.14
Ex.P.22 - Admitted writings-7
Ex.P.22(a) - Signature of P.W.10.
Ex.P.22(b) - Signature of P.W.14
Ex.P.23 - Report of P.W.11
Ex.P.23(a) - Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.23(b) - Signature of P.W.14
Ex.P.24 - Statement of P.W.12
Ex.P.25 - P.M.report
Ex.P.25(a) - Signature of P.w.13
Ex.P.25(b) - Signature of P.W.13
Ex.P.25© - Signature of P.w.14
Ex.P.26 - F.I.R.
Ex.P.27 - Xerox copy of sale deed
Ex.P.28 - Xerox copy of sale deed
Ex.P.29 - P.F.No.19/2008
Ex.P.30 - Copy of FIR of K.R.Puram
P.S. Cr.No.374/2008
Ex.P.30(1) - Original FIR in Cr.No.374/2008
Ex.P.30(1)(a)- Signature of P.w.16
Ex.P.31 - Newspaper cuttings
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:-N I L - 32 S.C.No.346/2012 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION :-
M.O.1 - Plastic rope M.O.2 - Jerkin M.O.3 - Shirt M.O.4 - Pant M.O.5 - Banyan
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE :-
NIL LXI ACC & SJ, Bangalore City.33 S.C.No.346/2012
Order pronounced in open Court vide detailed order passed separately.
O R D E R Accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under sections U/S.306 r/w.34 of IPC. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2 stand cancelled.34 S.C.No.346/2012
Accused Nos.1 and 2 are set at liberty M.Os.1 to 5 being worthless articles, are ordered to be destroyed, after appeal period is over.
(N.P.Koparde) LXI ACC & SJ, Bangalore.