Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 Mohan Kumar on 17 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 17 th DAY OF MARCH 2020
PRESENT
Smt. SANDHYA S., M.A., LL.B. (Spl.)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C.No.653/2017
Complainant The State of Karnataka
Magadi road P S,
Bengaluru.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
Accused No.1 Mohan Kumar,
S/o Late.Rajappa,
Aged about 28 years,
Accused No.2 Shivamma,
W/o. Late.Rajappa,
Aged about 42 Years,
Both R/at No.14, 15th
Cross, Cholurupalya,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.R.Kantharaju,
Adv.)
Date of offence 18.11.2016
2 S.C.No.653/2017
Date of report of offence 18.11.2016
Name of the Rakesh.R
complainant
Date of commencement 20.03.2018
of recording of evidence
Date of closing of 21.08.2019
evidence
Offences complained of Sec.498A, 306 r/w 34
of Indian Penal Code
Opinion of the Judge Accused not found
guilty
State represented by Learned Public
Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri.R.Kantharaju,
Advocate.
JU DG MEN T
This case is the result of charge sheet filed by
the complainant Police, Magadi Road Police Station
against the accused for the offence punishable under
section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is
that the complainant C.W.1 Rakesh.R, the father of
deceased Divya, registered the case against the
3 S.C.No.653/2017
accused persons as per Cr.No.262/2016 for the
offence punishable under section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of
Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation
the charge sheet was filed against the accused No.1
and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 498A,
306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Further it is alleged
that the deceased Divya was staying along with the
accused in her matrimonial home, in Magadi Road
Police station jurisdiction, at Cholarpalya, 15 th Cross,
No.14 along with the accused. That the complainant
use to help the accused to pay the monthly rent for
the rented house, even then the accused used to
quarrel with the deceased often for silly reason and
insult her that she got married to accused No.1
through love marriage. That on 18.11.2016 Accused
No.2 questioned the deceased Divya, why she was
hitting the baby. Because of this quarrel took place
and the deceased was given mental and physical
4 S.C.No.653/2017
torture and without bearing the ill-treatment on
18.11.2016 at 4.30 to 7.45 pm she committed
suicide and hence accused no.1 and 2 have abated
the deceased to commit suicide, by subjecting her to
physical and mental cruelty instigating her to die and
thereby the accused committed the offence as alleged
is the case of the prosecution.
3. As discussed herein above, on the complaint
of C.W.1 Rakesh.R, the father of the deceased, the
complainant police registered this case and after
completion of investigation filed charge sheet against
the accused before the learned Magistrate. At the
initial stage the accused was arrested and later was
released on bail.
4. In pursuance of service of summons, the
accused appeared through their counsel before the
learned Magistrate and got enlarged on bail. The
5 S.C.No.653/2017
learned Magistrate furnished copy of charge sheet to
the accused persons and hence, the provision of
Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. was complied with. As the offence
charge sheeted against the accused is exclusively
triable by sessions court, the learned Magistrate
acting under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. has committed the
case to Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court
and later Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions
Court has sent this case to this Court for trial and
hence, the matter is taken up before this Court
accordingly for further proceedings. The accused was
already on bail and later was present before this
court.
5. My predecessor had framed charge against the
accused for the offence punishable under Section
498A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, to which
6 S.C.No.653/2017
accused have pleaded not guilty and thereby they
have claimed to be tried of the said offence.
6. In support of the case of prosecution out of
the 21 witness cited in the charge sheet, 15 witnesses
are examined as P.W.1 to P.W.15. The prosecution has
produced 17 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 and 4
Material Objects as M.O.1 to M.O.4. After closing the
evidence of prosecution, this Court has recorded the
statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in
which the accused have denied the incriminating
materials forthcoming against them in the evidence of
prosecution witnesses as false.
7. Heard the argument of the learned Public
Prosecutor, who argued that the accused have
committed the offence charged and thus the accused
has to be convicted.
7 S.C.No.653/2017
8. Heard the argument of the defence counsel,
Advocate R.Kantaraju, who argued that the father of
the deceased Divya, has deposed that the marriage
was a love marriage. Accused no.1 is the husband
and the Accused no.2 is the mother-in-law of the
deceased. The marriage was against the consideration
of the parents and that the accused had taken good
care of the deceased. That the deceased was
depressed that her family left her out and so she had
committed suicide. That the accused had not
committed any offence and that they may be acquitted
from the offences charge against them. That the
deposition does not bring in ambit of Section 306 of
I.P.C.
9. Perused the oral and documentary evidence
on record. Now the points that arise for my
consideration are:
8 S.C.No.653/2017
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased having married 6 years ago to first accused, that the accused have quarreled with the deceased for silly reason and insulted her that she got married to the accused through love marriage and have given her physical and mental harassment, thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased was ill treated with physical and mental harassment and without bearing with the ill-treatment and harassment on 18.11.2016 in the house of accused, had committed suicide and the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC?
3. What order?
10. After hearing the argument of both the parties and on considering the oral and documentary 9 S.C.No.653/2017 evidence on record, my findings on the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1: In the negative Point No.2: In the negative Point No.3: As per final order for the following:
:R E A S O N S:
11. Points No.1 and 2: All these points are taken up for consideration together for convenience and also for avoiding repetition of discussion on the facts of the case and also regarding point of law.
12. As per the canon of criminal jurisprudence of our nation, prosecution has to bring home alleged guilt of accused with production of cogent and satisfactory evidence. Case of the accused is a total denial of the version of prosecution.
13. As stated herein above, it is not in dispute that the complainant C.W.1 Rakesh.R, is the father of 10 S.C.No.653/2017 the deceased and accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased.
14. Further, The offence charged against the accused is punishable under Section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, unless the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that when the deceased was residing with the accused, the accused instigated the deceased to die and thereby the accused subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty and thereafter without bearing with such ill-treatment by the accused, the deceased committed suicide, no case can be made out against the accused for the offence charged. In this background, the evidence forthcoming from the prosecution should be considered for proving the offences charged against the accused. 11 S.C.No.653/2017
15. As stated herein above, the prosecution was set into motion against the accused on the complaint of C.W.1, that deceased Divya was staying along with the accused in her matrimonial home, in Magadi Road Police station jurisdiction, at Cholar Palya, 15 th Cross, No.14 along with the accused. That the complainant use to help the accused to pay the monthly rent for the rented house, even then the accused used to quarrel with the deceased often for silly reason and insult her that she got married to accused No.1 through love marriage. That on 18.11.2016 Accused No.2 questioned the deceased Divya, why she was hitting the baby. Because of this quarrel took place and the deceased was given mental and physical torture and without bearing the ill-treatment on 18.11.2016 at 4.30 to 7.45 pm she committed suicide and hence accused no.1 and 2 have abated the deceased to commit suicide, by subjecting her to 12 S.C.No.653/2017 physical and mental cruelty instigating her to die and thereby the accused committed the offence as alleged, is the case of the prosecution. Hence, registered the case against the accused as per Cr.No.262/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide by subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty instigating her to die and thereby the accused committed the offence as alleged.
16. P.W.1 is C.W.1, Rakesh.R, who is the father of the deceased. He deposed that Divya is his daughter and she was married to the accused no.1 as love marriage on 18.11.2016. That his daughter had 13 S.C.No.653/2017 left the house, later after 5 days, she had called him and mentioned that she got married to the accused no.1. That accused no.2 is the mother of the accused no.1. That her daughter had not told the address where she was staying, but told that they were happy. That after few days she had told that her husband was staying in Byadarahalli. That later the witness, his wife and son had been to see the deceased and got her useful help. They got her the articles as they were newly married. That all were happy. Further that the deceased was complaining about the stomach pain and he does not know whether the accused no.1 had shown her in the hospital or not. That the accused no.2 had told about the death of the deceased that she had committed suicide. That the witness had been to the hospital and saw that his daughter was dead. That he gave a complaint to the police and the same is marked as Ex.P.1 and the 14 S.C.No.653/2017 signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P.1(a). That the deceased had a son and he is now growing with the accused no.1. Further that the police had drawn a mahajar and confiscated one red colour chudidhaar, red and white pant. That mahajar is marked as Ex.P.2 and the signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P.2(a). That the police had shifted the dead body to Victoria hospital and there the Thasildar had come and drawn the Inquest and later the body was received by him, for which he did last rites at Summanahalli. That the accused had not come. At this juncture the witness/complainant was treated as hostile and during the cross-examination conducted by the Learned Public Prosecutor, this witness has denied all the suggestion put to him by the prosecution. Further this witness has also denied the suggestion that he has given any complaint as Ex.P.1. On considering the evidence of this witness, it can be 15 S.C.No.653/2017 seen that this witness being the father of the deceased has totally refused any of the suggestion after turning hostile. This witness was of no use to the case of the prosecution as he had deposed against the case. Hence much reliance cannot be placed to the evidence of this witness.
17. The eye witness in the case are P.W.3, 4, 5. Among them, P.W.3 is Purushotham, who deposed that he knows the deceased and the couple were staying happily and the reason why she died is not know to him. That he had not given statement to the police and turned hostile, during the cross- examination conducted by the Learned Public Prosecutor, this witness has denied all the suggestion put to him by the prosecution and that he has not given any statement as per Ex.P.4.
16 S.C.No.653/2017
18. Further P.W.4 is Nethravati who deposed that the complainant is her neighbor. That deceased was her friend and she knows the accused no.1 and turned hostile, during the cross-examination conducted by the Learned Public Prosecutor, this witness has denied all the suggestion put to her by the prosecution. Further this witness has also denied the suggestion that she has not given any statement as per Ex.P.7. Further an other witness PW.5 is Sunil, was also termed as hostile and his statement was marked Ex.P.8. hence, the eye witness who are cited in the charge sheet have totally turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution was unable to explain why all these witnesses have turned hostile and not at all supported the version of the prosecution. 17 S.C.No.653/2017
19. The relative witness in the case are P.W.2,9,10,11,13 and PW.15. Among them P.W.2 is Rani, the wife of P.W.1 and mother of the deceased. Even she has deposed just like P.W.1 and turned hostile, during the cross-examination conducted by the Learned Public Prosecutor, this witness has denied all the suggestion put to her by the prosecution. Further this witness has also denied the suggestion that she has not given any statement as per Ex.P.3. Further P.W.9 is Kokila, who has also turned hostile and not at all supported the case and got marked M.O.1 to 2 and statement marked as Ex.P.11. Further another relative witness P.W.10 is Bhavya, who has also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case, and her statement was marked as as Ex.P.12. Again P.W.11 is Savita, who has also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case, and her statement was marked as 18 S.C.No.653/2017 Ex.P.13. Further P.W.13 is Subramani, who has also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case, and his statement was marked as Ex.P.15. Further P.W.15 is Keshav Murthi, who has also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case, and his statement was marked as Ex.P.17. Hence, on considering the evidence of these relative witnesses, who are P.W.2,9,10,11,13 and PW.15, who have all together not supported the case of the prosecution and negatived their version, much reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of these witnesses either.
20. The other witness who are cited to depose about the incident are P.W.6,7,12. The witness P.W.6, who is Manju, has also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case, and his statement was marked as Ex.P.9. Further P.W.7 is Sandeep, 19 S.C.No.653/2017 who has also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case, and his statement was marked as Ex.P.10. Again P.W.12 is Sandhya, who has also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case, and her statement was marked as Ex.P.14. On going through the evidence of these witnesses they have not at all supported the prosecution case. Hence, nothing useful was extracted by the deposition of these witnesses either, to prove the charges against the accused persons.
21. PW.8 is Gopal Swami, who is retired Tahasildar. He depose that on 18.11.2016 the concerned Police Station have given a requisition in order to conduct inquest. Hence, he has visited the Victoria Hospital on the next day. That there was ligature mark on the neck of the deceased and there were no other injuries on the body. That at this 20 S.C.No.653/2017 juncture C.W.6, CW5, CW7 were present and have signed. That he has signed in the inquest and the same is marked as Ex.P.5 and signature of the witness are marked as Ex.P.5(a) and (b). That during the inquest CW.8 to CW11 were present and their statements were recorded. That they have stated that accused were giving dowry harassment and torture. The statement of the relatives was recorded. That later, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination.
22. During the cross-examination, PW.8 denied the suggestion put to him by the counsel for accused and stated that the neighbors statement was not recorded because they was no need. This witness denied other suggestions put to him by the counsel for the accused. On considering the evidence of P.W.8 it goes to show that during the inquest all though the relatives and family members of the deceased have 21 S.C.No.653/2017 stated that there was quarrel for petty reason but the inquest mahazar witnesses have not been examined and further more the complainant and other material witnesses have completely turned hostile by not supporting the prosecution case goes to show that inquest which is Ex.P.5 cannot be wholly considered and the inquest is not proved. That there was no other injury mark on the body of the deceased except the ligature mark, goes to show that Ex.P.6 where in the opinion as to cause of death is " Death is due to Asphyxia as a result of Hanging" is accepted.
23. PW.14 Lakshmi Narasimha Raju is official witnesses who is retired PSI. He deposed that on 18.11.2016 at 10.00 p.m, he received the complaint from Rakesh and registered FIR which was sent to the Hon'ble court. The complaint is marked as Ex.P.1 and signature of the witness as Ex.P.1(b). The FIR is 22 S.C.No.653/2017 marked as Ex.P.16 and signature of the witness as Ex.P.16(a). That he called for panchas to the incident spot and drew the mahazar. The Mahazer is marked as Ex.P.2 and signature of the witness as Ex.P.2(d). That in the incident spot the material used to commit suicide one red-saree which was marked as M.O.1, red and white colored vail was marked as M.O.3, which were confiscated as per the seizure mahazar. That later the dead body was sent to the Victoria Hospital which was kept in the Mortuary. On 19.11.2016, requisition was given to the Tahasildar, to conduct inquest and Tahasildar came at 9.00am and conducted the inquest. Later the body was handed over to the relatives after the postmortem examination. The doctors who have conducted the postmortem examination had sent the cloths on the deceased through Police constable. The same were confiscated as per the Mahazer and PF. That the 23 S.C.No.653/2017 cloth is already marked as M.O.2 which is red and white coloured chudidhar pant. Another chudidhar top maroon and red colour was marked as M.O.4. That the accused No.1 and 2 were produced in the Police station through Police constable-2809 and Women Police Constable-3659. The confession statement of the accused was recorded. Later on the same day statements of C.W2, CW3, CW5 to CW7, CW12 to CW17 were recorded. That the accused was produced before the Hon'ble court after medical test through PC.9431 and Women Police Constable 3659. That later the witness submitted charge sheet to the Hon'ble Court.
24. During the cross examination PW.14 deposed that the complaint was typed by the complainant and brought for which he has endorsed on it. The witness admitted the suggestion that any 24 S.C.No.653/2017 where in the complaint there is no mention of any dowry harassment. That during the FIR 306 was mentioned is admitted by the witness. Further The witness admitted the suggestion that no statement was given by the complainant but only gave complaint copy. This witness has denied other suggestions put to him by the defense counsel. On considering the evidence of investigating officer, he stating that in the complaint which is Ex.P.1 there is no mention of Dowry harassment and the complainant himself turning hostile to the case of the prosecution wholly negatives the case. Further Ex.P.2 the mahazar, the witnesses have turned hostile and not at all supported the version of the prosecution, thereby Ex.P.2 is not proved.
25. On considering the entire evidence, papers on records and charge sheet material, it is important 25 S.C.No.653/2017 to note that the complainant PW.1 has turned hostile. Further the relative witnesses PW.2, PW.9, PW.10, PW.11, PW.13, PW.15 have all turned hostile. The witness who speak about the incident PW.6, PW.7, PW.12 have also turned hostile. Further the witnesses PW.3, PW.4, PW.5 who are eye witnesses have also completely turned hostile. Basing only on the evidence of the witness PW.8 and PW.14 who are the official witnesses it cannot be taken that the charge against the accused No.1 and 2 is proved. The prosecution has not explained why all the witness except the Investigating Officer and Tahasildar, have turned hostile one by one. Hence, from the discussion made herein above, it is clear that the evidence of P.W.1, the father of the deceased is not supported by the other material witness of the prosecution case as alleged against the accused. The independent witnesses have turned hostile to the case of 26 S.C.No.653/2017 prosecution. The inquest panchanama at Ex.P.5 and the spot mahazar at Ex.P.2 are not proved by the prosecution on examination of the so called witnesses. Only on the basis of evidence of I.O P.W.14 no case can be made out against the accused for the offence charged. Therefore, doubt arises regarding the case alleged against the accused. It is well settled principle of law that the accused is entitled to the benefit of such doubt. Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused subjected the deceased to any physical and mental harassment or cruelty and that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove point No.1 and 2 and therefore, the point No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
26. Point No.3: From the discussion made herein above, it is clear that the accused No.1 and 2 27 S.C.No.653/2017 deserves to be acquitted of the offence charged against them. In the result, therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
O RDE R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
the accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail bond executed by the accused No.1 and 2 and the surety bond shall stand canceled.
The property/cloth at M.O.1 to M.O.4 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period as it is worthless.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 17th day of March, 2020) (Smt. SANDHYA S.) LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 72) 28 S.C.No.653/2017 ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: Rakesh.R P.W.2: Rani P.W.3: Purushotham P.W.4: Nethravathi P.W.5: Sunil P.W.6: Manju P.W.7: Sandeep P.W.8: Gopalaswamy P.W.9: Kokila PW.10: Bhavya P.W.11:Savitha P.W.12: Sandhya P.W.13: Subramani P.W.14:Lakshmi Narasimharaju P.W.15: Keshavamurthy List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of witness
Ex.P.2 : Panchanama
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of witness
Ex.P.3 : Statement of Rani
29 S.C.No.653/2017
Ex.P.4 : Statement of Purushotham
Ex.P5 : Death investigation report
Ex.P.5(a & b) : Signature of witnesses Ex.P.6 : Postmortem Report Ex.P.7 to 15 : Statements Ex.P.16 : FIR Ex.P.16(a) : Signature of the witness Ex.P.17 : Statement List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
-NIL-
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:
-NIL-
List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:
M.O.1 - Red Saree with Green & white design
M.O.1(a) - Signature of witness
M.O.2 - Red and white pant
MO.2(a) - Signature of the witness
M.O.3 - Red and green colored veil
M.O.4 - Red and Maroon white colored top
(Smt. SANDHYA S.)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 72) 30 S.C.No.653/2017 (Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate order) ORD ER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
the accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 498A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The bail bond executed by the accused No.1 and 2 and the surety bond shall stand canceled.
The property/cloth at M.O.1 to M.O.4 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period as they are worthless.
LXXI ACC & SJ Bengaluru