Bangalore District Court
Has Deposed That He Has Written The ... vs No.2 And 3 Parents-In-Law Of Deceased ... on 7 March, 2022
KABC010144802016
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT:
Sri. Abdul Rahim Husain Shaikh,
B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B.(Spl.)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
SC NO.768/2016
BETWEEN
State by Air Port P.S.,(JB Nagar P.S.,)
Bengaluru. .. COMPLAINANT
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
AND
1.Nagaraj @ Naveen
S/o Venkateshwar Rao,
29 Yrs.,
R/a No.78/1(b).
C/o Srinivasa Reddys' House,
BWSSB Road,
chellaghatta Rama,
Yamaluru Post,
Bengaluru City-37.
2.Venkateshwara Rao
S/o Annamadavalu Veerabhadra Rao,
A/a 60 Yrs.,
3.Smt. Venkatalakshmi
C/o Venkateshwara Rao,
A/a 55 Yrs.,
2 S.C.No.768/2016
R/a No.1-7, Damireddy Palli,
Kadiyam Mandal East,
Godavari District,
Andhra Pradesh State-533 126. ...ACCUSED NO.1 to 3.
(By the Sri MP, Advocate)
*****
Date of offence & time 18.06.2015 at 23.45 to 7.00
hours
Date of report of offence 20.06.2015 at 21.305 hour
Date of arrest of the accused 21.06.2015
Date of release on bail 25.07.2015
Total period of custody 35 days
Name of the complainant Sri Menda Shivaji
Date of commencement of 14.11.2019
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 26.08.2021
Offences complained off U/s.304B r/w Sec.34 of IPC and
Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act
Opinion of the Judge Accused found not guilty
JUDGMENT
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Airport Sub- Division, Bangalore, has submitted charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s.304B r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act in their Crime No.88/2015.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that:
The marriage of accused No.1 and deceased-Smt. Neelima, was solemnized on 23.01.2014. After the marriage the accused No.1 to 3 subjected the deceased-Smt. Neelima to physical and mental cruelty in demanding to bring back the land papers, and to execute the same in their names, which 3 S.C.No.768/2016 stands in the name of deceased-Smt. Neelima. Unable to bear the mental and physical cruelty in demanding landed property of the accused persons and due to their abetment the deceased-Smt. Neelima on 18.06.2015 at 11.15 p.m. committed suicide by hanging at matrimonial house. Accordingly, the case was registered against the accused No.1 and 3 for abetting the deceased to commit suicide.
3. The concerned police have submitted charge sheet before the jurisdictional X Addl., CMM., Bangalore. The learned Magistrate after taking the cognizance for the offences U/s.304B r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act against accused No.1 to 3 committed the case to the Sessions Court by complying Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., furnishing charge sheet copies to the accused No.1 to 3. After the receipt of the committal records, the same was alloted to this Court and numbered as SC No.768/2016.
4. The charge was framed and read over and explained to the accused No.1 to 3 on 5.12.2017 for the offences U/s.498A and 304B r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act IPC in the language known to the accused No.1 to 3 and for which they pleaded not guilty for the alleged offences and claimed to be tried.
5.The prosecution has examined in all twelve witnesses as PW.1 to PW.12 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P.22. Further at the time of trial the learned Public Prosecutor has given up the witnesses CW.10, CW.11 and CW.14 to CW.16, as repetition witnesses in view of evidence of other material witnesses. In spite of sufficient opportunities provided to the 4 S.C.No.768/2016 prosecution by issuing summons, warrant and proclamation for securing CW.1 and CW.17, who were reported to be dead and in view of the same the evidence of said witnesses was taken as nil.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of accused No.1 to 3 U/s.313 Cr.P.C., was recorded on 24.02.2022. The accused No.1 to 3 have denied incriminating evidence appearing against them in prosecution case, and not chosen to lead defense evidence on their behalf nor produced any material in support of his case. The accused complied the provisions of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C., and the case was posted for arguments.
7.Heard the arguments on both sides and also perused the materials on record.
8.The following points that arises for consideration of this court:
1. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused No.1 to 3 are being the husband and parents-in-law of the deceased-
Smt.Neelima subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and thereby the accused No.1 to 3 have committed the offence punishable U/s.498-A r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused No.1 to 3 are being the husband and parents-in-law of the deceased-
Smt.Neelima in demand received gold and silver articles along with cash of 5 S.C.No.768/2016 Rs.1,00,000/- and two acres of landed property in the name of deceased- Neelima and thereby the accused No.1 to 3 have committed the offence punishable U/s.3 of DP act?
3. Whether the prosecution proves that accused No.1 to 3 are being the husband and parents-in-law of the deceased-Smt. Neelima subjected her to physical and mental cruelty after marriage in demanding to execute the land as additional dowry in their names and thereby the accused No.1 to 3 have committed the offence punishable U/s.4 of DP Act?
4. Whether the prosecution proves that accused No.1 to 3 have abeted the deceased-Smt.Neelima to commit suicide by hanging, subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty in demanding the landed property as additional dowry in their names, within the seven years of the marriage and thereby the accused No.1 to 3 have committed the offence punishable U/s.304B r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
5. What order?
9.This Court has answered the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative 6 S.C.No.768/2016 Point No.2: In the Negative Point No.3: In the Negative Point No.4: In the Negative Point No.5: As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
10.Points No.1 to 4: All these points are taken up together as they are related to each other and to avoid repetition in the discussion.
The marriage of accused No.1 and deceased-Smt. Neelima, was solemnized on 23.01.2014. After the marriage the accused No.1 to 3 subjected the deceased-Smt. Neelima to physical and mental cruelty in demanding to bring back the land papers, and to execute the same in their names, which stands in the name of deceased-Smt. Neelima. Unable to bear the mental and physical cruelty in demanding landed property of the accused persons and due to their abetment the deceased-Smt. Neelima on 18.06.2015 at 11.15 p.m. committed suicide by hanging at matrimonial house. Accordingly, the case was registered against the accused No.1 and 3 for abetting the deceased to commit suicide.
11.In order to prove the said allegation and mental and physical harassment, the prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses out of which PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.4, PW.5, PW.6, PW.9, PW.10, PW.11 and PW.12, who are the blood relatives of the deceased and circumstantial witnesses. The prosecution has dropped the evidence of complainant/CW.1, as he was reported dead. Among the above witnesses PW.1 Nagesh 7 S.C.No.768/2016 Babu and PW.4 Vijayakumar, who are the friends and colleagues of accused No.1, PW.2 Annam Revathi and PW.3 Ravikumar who are the sister and brother-in-law of deceased_Smt. Neelima, PW.5 Gandhi, who is the relative of deceased, PW.6 Aditya Venkateshulu, who is the friend of accused No.1, PW.9, who is the owner of the house rented to deceased-Smt. Neelima and her husband accused No.1., PW.10 MKN Murthy, who is the brother of deceased Smt. Neelima, PW.11 Narasimha Verma, who is the friend and colleague of accused No.1, and PW.12 Lakshman Rao, who is the uncle of deceased-Neelima and on analyzing the testimony of the blood relatives, relatives and friends/colleagues, it is found that all the witnesses have turned hostile to the case of prosecution by deposing that they had no knowledge that accused No.1 along with his parents accused No.2 and 3 have subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty in demanding additional dowry in terms of landed property in their name. . Further all these witnesses have deposed that they had no knowledge that the accused persons have quarreled with the deceased-Smt. Neelima and 18.06.2015 soon before her demand in demand of additional dowry in the form of land and abetted her to commit suicide by hanging within the seven years of marriage of deceased-Smt. Neelima with accused No.1. It is pertinent to note that the blood relatives of deceased-Smt. Neelima PW.2, PW.10 and PW.12 who are the sister brother and uncle have clearly deposed in their evidence that the accused No.1 after marrying the deceased-Smt. Neelima on 15.05.2014 was living cordially and never 8 S.C.No.768/2016 complained through phone and also when she met them regarding causing physical and mental cruelty by her husband/accused No.1 and in-laws/accused No.2 and 3, and there was no occasion for them to advise the accused persons to take care of deceased-Smt. Neelima. Further it is the evidence of the witnesses that in the month of June 2015 Smt. Neelima has committed suicide and they have no knowledge as to for what reason she had committed suicide All these witnesses were treated as hostile by the prosecution, and cross-examined at length, but no incriminating evidence was elicited from the evidence of witnesses PW.2, PW.10 and PW.12 to prove that the accused No.1 husband of deceased- Neelima along with his parents accused No.2 and 3 subjected the deceased to mental and physical cruelty in demanding additional dowry, and abetted her to commit suicide within the seven years of marriage.. Further in the cross-examination by the prosecution all these witnesses PW.2, PW.10 and PW.12 have denied that they have given the statements before the I.O., as per Ex.P7, Ex.P20 and Ex.P22 respectively. As such the evidence of PW.2, PW.10 and PW.12 cannot be considered to prove the allegations against the accused No.1 to 3, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
12.The prosecution examined PW.1, PW.4 and PW.11, who are the colleagues of accused No.1. Among them PW.1 being the complainant who deposed that accused No.1 and the deceased-Smt. Neelima were living cordially without any dispute. Further it is the evidence of PW.1 that at 11.30 p.m. after receiving a phone call he had been to the house of 9 S.C.No.768/2016 accused No.1, where people were gathered and on enquiry he found that the wife of accused No.1 by name Smt.Neelima has committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan. It is the further evidence of PW.1 that he immediately called the police who arrived to the spot and on their instruction he had filed Ex.P1 complaint. It is equally important to note that PW.4 and PW.11 have also deposed that accused No.1 was their colleague and was living a good marital life without any dispute with the deceased-Smt. Neelima and they do not at why said Smt.Neelima has committed suicide. All these witnesses were treated as hostile by the prosecution, and cross-examined at length, but no incriminating evidence was elicited from the evidence of witnesses PW.1, PW.4 and PW.11 to prove that the accused No.1 husband of deceased-Neelima along with his parents accused No.2 and 3 subjected the deceased to mental and physical cruelty in demanding additional dowry and abetted her to commit suicide. In the chief-examination PW.1 the complainant has deposed that he has written the complaint on the instruction of police, which clear establishes that PW.1 had no knowledge regarding the actual facts of the case and only drafted the complaint on the say of police. The witnesses PW.4 and PW.11 were treated as hostile by the prosecution and they were cross-examined at length, but no material evidence was elicited from them to prove that the statements made before the I.O., as per Ex.P10 and Ex.P21 respectively. As such the evidence of PW.1, PW.4 and PW.11 cannot be considered to prove the allegations against the accused No.1 to 3, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
10 S.C.No.768/201613.The prosecution examined the panch witnesses PW.1 for seizure panchama Ex.P3, P4, spot panchanama Ex.P2, and witness PW.3 for seizure panchanama Ex.P3, witness PW.6 for seizure panchanama Ex.P4, witness PW.9, who is the owner of the building for spot panchanama Ex.P2. All these witnesses were treated as hostile by the prosecution, and cross-examined at length, but no incriminating evidence was elicited from the evidence of witnesses PW.1, PW.3, PW.6 and PW.9 to prove the spot panchanama Ex.P2, seizure panchanama Ex.P3 and P4. In view of the same though the I.O., PW.8 has deposed that he had executed the seizure panchanama Ex.P3 and P4, but the same is not sufficiently and satisfactorily proved since the panch witnesses have turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
14.At this juncture I would like to produce the ruling reported in State of HP Vs. Jagroop Singh and others 1993 Cri.LJ. 2766 at para 17, 18 and 19 it is held that Cordial relationship of accused and deceased when established and in those circumstances the accused was liable to be acquitted for the offence punishable U/s.498A and 304B of IPC.
Admittedly in this case there is clear evidence from the witnesses PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.4, PW.5, PW.6, PW.9, PW.10, PW.11 and PW.12, who are the blood relatives of the deceased, friends and circumstantial witnesses, who have deposed in their evidence there was a cordial relationship 11 S.C.No.768/2016 between the accused No.1 and deceased after the marriage to till death. Further the witnesses have clearlly deposed that the the deceased and accused No.1 were living cordially and accused No.2 and 3 parents-in-law of deceased staying away from the accused No.1 and the deceased in their village, and also had no dispute with the deceased and have never subjected deceased to physical and mental cruelty at any point of time along with accused No.1. Further all the witnesses have deposed that the deceased-Smt. Neelima, has never narrated anything with regard to harassment caused by accused persons All the witnesses PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.4, PW.5, PW.6, PW.9, PW.10, PW.11 and PW.12 were treated as hostile by the prosecution, and were cross-examined at length, but no incriminating evidence was elicited in the evidence of the said witnesses to prove the guilt against the accused No.1 to 3.
15.The prosecution examined the I.O., PW.7/CW.18 and PW.8/CW.19, who have deposed that they have registered the case in Crime No.88/2015 based on the complaint Ex.P1 and after registering FIR Ex.P12, visited the spot and conducted the panchanama Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 in the presence of the panchas. Further it is the evidence of the I.O., that as per the order of the Court they seized gold ornaments vide in PF 22/2015 marked as per Ex.P.15 through photographs Ex.P.16. It is also the evidence of I.O., that after collecting the PM Report Ex.P.6 and recording the statements of CW.6 to CW.8 and conducting the panchanamna sketch Ex.P.6 had filed charge sheet against the accused persons. It is pertinent to note in the cross-examination the I.O., has denied the witnesses have not given any 12 S.C.No.768/2016 statements before him as deposed in the chief examination. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that as discussed above the witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, and have clearly deposed that they have not given any statement to the I.O., during investigation. In view of non- corroboration of the evidence of the witnesses with that off investigation Officer the contention of the prosecution that the I.O., has recorded the statements of the witnesses, who have supported the case of the prosecution regarding the accused committing of the alleged offence cannot be taken into consideration. The PM report Ex.P6 marked with consent discloses that the death of deceased-Smt.Neelima due to Asphyxia as a result of hanging. The report does not support the case of the prosecution since the prosecution has utterly failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt before the Court that the death of decased-Smt. Neelima by hanging was due to the abetment of the accused No.1 to 4.
16.In the instant case the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt. In this context I would like to rely upon the ruling of five golden principles established in Sharad Birdichand Sarda V/s State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 as under:-
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must 13 S.C.No.768/2016 or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court, where the following observations were made:
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
17.At this juncture I would also like to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Cour t in the case of 14 S.C.No.768/2016 DASARI SHIVAPRASAD REDDY VS., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2004) 11 SCC 282 wherein at paragraph 24 of the judgment it is observed that:-
"A strong suspicion, no doubt, exists against the appellant, but such suspicion cannot be the basis of conviction, going by the standard of proof required in a criminal case. The distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' shall be fully covered by reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution."
while following the essentials of the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it depends upon the present facts of this case to find out whether the prosecution has establishes the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused persons. It is found that all the material witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and none of the averments of the complaint Ex.P1 and Ex.P13 UDR Complaint have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt in order to establish the guilt against the accused persons. From this dictum of law it is found that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that in a criminal case the Court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. In the instant case also the non-corroboration of the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.4, PW.5, PW.6, PW.9, PW.10, PW.11 and PW.12, who are the blood relatives of the deceased, friends, and circumstantial witnesses with the evidence of PW.7 and PW.8 I.Os., is sufficient to establish that 15 S.C.No.768/2016 no case is made out against the accused persons without any legal proof.
18.The testimony of the witnesses PW.1 to PW.12 is clouded with grave suspicion and discrepancy, particularly recording of statement of witnesses and conviction based on such testimony is not safe since the statement of the witnesses contradicts regarding subjecting the deceased to mental and physical cruelty and abetment by accused and also involvement of the accused in committing the alleged offences as averred in the complaints Ex.P1 and Ex.P13. The said dictum of law is upheld in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JAGADISH PRASAD VS. STATE OF MADHYAPRADESH (AIR 1994 SC 1251) "17. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be' proved and `will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason, that the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the 16 S.C.No.768/2016 prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense."
19.It is further noted that, as far as the statements of the witnesses recorded in this case are concerned, they are identical and does not corroborate with the evidence of I.O., regarding involvement of accused persons in committing the alleged offences. Though it is settled principle of law that merely because the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses, their testimony cannot be discarded on said ground alone, but the evidence of the interested witnesses must be identical and there should be no major contradictions among them. In the instant case, the blood related witnesses-Brother and sisters, 17 S.C.No.768/2016 friends and circumstantial witnesses PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.4, PW.5, PW.6, PW.9, PW.10, PW.11 and PW.12 does not depict as to what actually happened to corroborate the averments of the complaint Ex.P1 and Ex.P13.
20.After referring to the aforesaid principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court , it is clearly establishes that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused as alleged in the charge sheet beyond all reasonable doubt since the evidence of witnesses PW.1 to PW.12 it becomes clear that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to prove the charge leveled against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s.498A and 304B r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. From the above reasons and discussions it is found that the suicide committed by victim/deceased-Smt.Neelima cannot be said to be the result of any action or abetment on the part of the accused persons as contended in the complaint. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 along with accused No.2 and 3, abetted deceased- Smt.Neelima to commit suicide by causing physical and mental harassment. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 to 4 in the Negative.
21. Point No.5: In view of answer of court on points No.1 to 4, this court pass the following:-
18 S.C.No.768/2016ORDER Acting U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.498A and 304B r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.
The bail and surety bonds of accused No.1 to 3 stand canceled.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 7th day of March, 2022) (Abdul Rahim Husain Shaikh) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.19 S.C.No.768/2016
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: Naresh Babu P.W.2: Annam Revathi P.W.3: Ravi Kumar P.W.4: Vijaykumar P.W.5: Gandhi P.W.6: Adithya Venkateshwaralu P.W.7: Naveen Kulkarni P.W.8: S.H. Duggappa P.W.9: Srinivasa Reddy P.W.10: MKVN Murthy P.W.11: Narasimha Varma P.W.12: Lakshman Rao.
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Spot Mahazar Ex.P.3: Statement of PW.1 Ex.P.4: Statement of PW.1 Ex.P.5: Inquest Mahazar Ex.P.6: PM Report Ex.P.7: Statement of PW.2 Ex.P.8: Statement of PW.3 Ex..P.9: Copy of Sketch Ex.P.10: Statement of PW.4 Ex.P.11: UDR No.12/2015 dated 19.06.2015 Ex.P.12: FIR Ex.P.13: UDR Complaint Ex.P.14: PF No.21/2015 dated 22.06.2015 Ex.P.15: PF No.22/2015 dated 23.06.2015 Ex.P.16: Photographs Ex.P.17: Wedding Card Ex.P.18: Marriage Photographs Ex.P.19: Statement of PW.9 Ex.P.20: Statement of PW.10 Ex.P.21: Statement of PW.11 Ex.P.22: Statement of PW.12..
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
NIL 20 S.C.No.768/2016 List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:-
NIL List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:-
NIL (Abdul Rahim Husain Shaikh) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.21 S.C.No.768/2016
Order pronounced in the open Court vide its separate order ORDER Acting U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.498A and 304B r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.The bail and surety bonds of accused No.1 to 3
stand canceled.
(Abdul Rahim Husain Shaikh) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.22 S.C.No.768/2016