Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 : G.R.Vishnuvarma on 29 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 52)
Dated this the 29 th day of July 2022
:PRESENT:
Sri. Yashawanth Kumar, B.A.(Law), LL.B,
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
S.C.No. 69/2009
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
Represented by
The Station House Officer,
Mico Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru City.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs.
Accused No.1 : G.R.Vishnuvarma, S/o. Late
Rangaswamy N. Aged 32 years,
R/o. No. 470, 6th Main, 8th
Cross, B.T.M. 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-76.
Accused No.2 : Smt. Lalithamma, W/o. Late
N. Rangaswamy, Aged: 53
years, R/o. No. 470, 6th Main,
8th Cross, B.T.M. 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-76. (Split up in S.C.
127/09)(Abated)
2 SC No.69/2009
Accused No.3 : Smt. Yashodamma, W/o.
D. Rangaswamy, Aged: 48
years, R/o. No.497,
Poornachandra School Road,
Kuvempu Nagar, Channaraya
patna, Hassan District.
Accused No.4 : Sri.D.Rangaswamy, S/o. Late
Doddaiah, Aged 59 years,
R/o. No.497, Poornachandra
School Road, Kuvempu
Nagar, Channarayapatna,
Hassan District.
(By Sri R.Venuprasad, Advocate,
M/s. C.M.Dhananjaya Associates
& Advocates, Advocate for A-1)
1 Date of commission of offence 20/02/2008
2 Date of report of offence 21/02/2008
3 Date of arrest of the accused 21/02/2008 (A1) A 2
to 4 present on
27/06/2008
4 Date of release of accused on 21/06/2008(Hon'ble
bail High Court bail order
inCr.P.No.1641/2008
(A1)
5 Date of commencement of 09/02/2016
evidence
6 Date of closing of evidence 21/04/2018
7 Name of the complainant Sri.Venkataswamy
8 Offences complained of Sections 498-A,
304(B), 306 r/w Sec.
3 SC No.69/2009
34 I.P.C. & Sections
3, 4 & 6 of D.P.
Act,1961 r/w Sec.34
I.P.C.
9 Opinion of the Judge Guilt of the accused
No's.1, 3 & 4 not
proved
10 Order of Sentence As per final order
JUDGMENT
This is a charge-sheet filed against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offences punishable Under Secs.498-A, 304(B) and 306 of IPC r/w Sec. 34 of I.P.C. & under Secs 3, 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. During the pendency of the case accused No.2 reported to be dead and hence case against her has been abated.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
Accused No.1 is the husband of deceased Smt. B.V.Mamata @ Mohite, accused No.2 was the mother of accused No.1. Accused No.3 is the sister of accused No.1 and accused No.4 is the husband of accused No.3. Cw-1 4 SC No.69/2009 B.N.Venkataswamy is the father, Cw-2 is the mother, Cw- 3 is the brother of deceased Smt. B.V.Mamatha. The marriage of deceased Smt. B.V.Mamatha has took place with accused No.1 on 29.8.2005 at Thirumala Kalyana Mantapa in Chennarayapatna. About 2 months prior to the marriage, the marriage negotiations took place. Cw-6 Suma @ Sumithra, Cw-7 Manju @ Narasimharaju were mediators in the marriage negotiations. In the marriage negotiations, accused No.1 to 4 participated from the side of bridegroom and Cws-1 to 5 had participated from the side of bride. During the marriage negotiations, accused persons demanded a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs in cash and 500 grams of gold ornaments as dowry and also to bear the expenses of marriage. Cw-1 expressed his inability to pay said dowry and to meet the demands. Finally, it was agreed to give 250 grams of gold ornaments as dowry.
After 15 days of completion of marriage negotiations, in the engagement ceremony a gold ring weighing 16 grams, 5 SC No.69/2009 a bracelet weighing 19 grams and a coral chain weighing 44 grams were given to accused No.1. During marriage, the bride was given gold ornaments as demanded by the accused persons. After the marriage Smt. B.V.Mamatha was residing with accused No.1 and 2 in their house at Myco layout in Bengaluru. She was looked after well for about 6 months. Thereafter, accused No.1 and 2 started ill-treatment to deceased Smt. B.V.Mamatha. She had informed the same to her parents when she had come to her parents house. Accused No.2 used to tell her to clean the house again and again and she used to tell accused No.1 that she does not do any work. If deceased Smt. B.V.Mamatha and her husband go out of the house and comes late, accused No.2 used to abuse her, for which accused No.1 used to keep quiet. Accused No.1 and 2 asked deceased Smt. B.V.Mamatha to bring money from her parents house. Accused No.3 and 4 used to visit the house of accused No.1 and 2 often and accused No.3 6 SC No.69/2009 used to instigate accused No.2 to ill-treat the deceased. Accused No.3 used to say that deceased has brought bad luck and therefore, accused No.1 and 2 have met with accident 2-3 times, thereafter they have to perform some rituals to get rid of the misfortune. When accused No.2 informed accused No.3 that the in laws of her daughter asked for a house and they would not send her to their house if their demand was not met, accused No.3 used to tell accused No.2 to ask the deceased to bring money from her parents house. Once when deceased had forgot to bring the milk, accused No.3 abused her. But accused No.1 never used to say anything to accused No.2 and 3 and he used to keep quiet by listening to their words spoken against her. The deceased used to tell the same to her parents and she used to tell them that she would not go back to her husband's house and she would earn her livelihood by working as a teacher in a convent. At that time deceased was 3 months pregnant. After 5 7 SC No.69/2009 months of pregnancy, she was brought to her parents house. During that time accused No.1 used to come to the house of Cw-1 to see her once in a month. At that time he used to demand money from her. In the month of October 2006, one day accused persons came to the house of Cw-1, at that time Cw-1 had asked them as to why they were ill-treating his daughter and who is responsible for if anything happens to his daughter. For which accused No.3 told that if his daughter dies, they would perform another marriage to accused No.1 and abused in filthy language by demanding money. However, Cw-1 pacified them by saying that he would give money when he gets money from his retirement benefits. Thereafter on 16.1.2007 deceased Smt. B.V.Mamatha gave birth to a male baby. After 9 months the deceased was sent to house of accused No.1 and 2. The Cw-1 and 2 used to go and see their daughter and grand son in the house of accused No.1 and 2. At that 8 SC No.69/2009 time deceased used to tell them that accused persons used to ill-treat her by demanding money. When the brother of deceased visited the house of accused No.1 and 2 for 5-6 times, accused No.2 asked the deceased to tell her brother not to come without money and if he again comes to their house, she would make him stand outside the house, they would not allow him inside the house. Accused No.2 was not allowing to keep a housemaid to do the household works when deceased used to find it difficult to do the household work along with taking care of her child. Accused No.2 used to ask the deceased to feed accused No.1 with her hands. On 13.12.2007 the naming ceremony of the baby of the deceased was arranged in the house of accused No.1 and
2. For the said function only Cw-1 and 2 were invited from the side of the deceased. Her brother was not invited. The accused No.1 and 2 used to tell that when the parents and brother of the deceased were not capable 9 SC No.69/2009 of giving money as demanded by them why they should be called to the naming ceremony. On 19.2.2008, Cw-1 along with his wife Cw-2 went to Bengaluru to consult a Doctor regarding Kidney stone problem of Cw-1. The doctor asked them to come back on the next day. Therefore, Cw-1 and 2 went to the house of accused No.1 and 2 at 9 p.m. In the house accused No.2 told them that her daughter was being ill-treated by their in-laws by demanding money from her parents house and they were not sending her to their house and she did not attend the naming ceremony of the baby of accused No.1 and if Cw- 1 and 2 gives money to them, they could solve the problem. Cw-1 told her that he has not yet received his pension amount and he would give money immediately after he receives the same. At 9.15 p.m., accused No.1 came, accused No.2 informed him that Cws-1 and 2 are telling that they cannot give money. Thereafter deceased and accused No.1 went out of the house to show the baby 10 SC No.69/2009 to a doctor and came back at 11 p.m. When Cw-2 had asked accused No.2 to send the deceased for foundation laying ceremony of their house, accused No.1 refused to send her. On 20.2.2008 at 8.30 p.m., Cw-1 and 2 went back to the hospital and thereafter at 1 p.m. after visiting the hospital, Cw-1 called the mobile phone of the deceased, but she did not receive the phone calls in spite of several attempts. Finally, he called the land line phone of the house of accused No.1 and 2. After several attempts some one picked the phone at 1.30 p.m. and informed that deceased is seriously ill and asked them to come immediately. Therefore, Cws 1 and 2 immediately went to the house of accused No.1 and 2 and found that deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. In respect of the same, Cw-1 lodged a complaint at 2.30 a.m., on 21.2.2008. On the basis of his complaint a case was registered in Cr. No. 94/2008 of Myco layout P.S. for the offences punishable U/secs. 304-B R/w. 34 of IPC 11 SC No.69/2009 against accused No.1 to 4 and Sneha who is the daughter of accused No.3 and 4.
4. During the course of their investigation, the police prepared inquest panchanama on the dead body, post-mortem examination was conducted, collected the documents, recorded the statements of witnesses, FSL reports obtained. After the completion of the investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused No.1 to 4.
5. During the committal proceedings accused No.1, 3 and 4 got released on bail. Accused No.2 did not appear before the committal court, therefore her case was split up and separate case was registered in C.C.No. 22451/2008. Case against A-1, 3, and 4 committed to the court of Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City and made over to this court. Later the case against accused No.2 also committed and it was registered in S.C. No. 127/2009, but subsequently it was 12 SC No.69/2009 reported that A-2 is dead and hence case against A-2 abated.
6. Accused No.1, 3, 4 appeared before this court and furnished surety for their appearance before court. Heard before charge. Charged framed for the offence punishable U/s. Sec. 3, 4 of D.P. Act and Sec. 498-A , 304-B and 306 IPC R/w. Sec. 34 IPC. Charge was read over and explained to A-1, 3 and 4. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case posted for prosecution evidence.
7. to prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses as Pws 1 to 14 and got marked documents at Ex.P-1 to P-38. MOs 1 to 5 were also marked for the prosecution. During the evidence of prosecution witnesses the accused persons have got marked 19 documents as per D-1 to D-19 by confronting the same to them.
13 SC No.69/2009
8. Accused No.1, 3 and 4 examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they have denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence.
9. Accused No.1 examined himself as Dw-1 and two more witnesses as Dw-2 and 3. Accused No. 4 examined himself as Dw-4 and two more witnesses as DW-5 and 6. During the defence evidence Ex.D-1(a) to D-19(a), Ex. D- 20 to 167 have been marked.
10. Heard the arguments of learned public prosecutor for state. He has relied on the following decisions;-
1) (2000) 5 SCC 207 (Kans raj Vs. State of Punjab & others.)
2) AIR 2006 SC 2002. (Sahebrao and Anr. Vs. State of Maharastra)
3) 2006(4) KarLJ 213(DB)(State by Chikka nayakanahalli Police Vs. Muniyappa and others.)
4) 2007 CriLJ 779(Surender Vs. State of Haryana)
5) 2010 CriLJ 1515 (Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka)
6) (2011) 11 SCC 359 (Bansilal Vs. State of Hariyana) 14 SC No.69/2009
7) (2014)11 SCC 516 (Ramesh Vithal Patil Vs. State of Karnataka and others)
8) 2014 CriLJ 551( Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Hariyana)
9) 2014 AIR SCW 6826 (Kanchanben Purshottambhai Bhanderi Vs. State of Gujarat)
10) (2014)12 SCC 496 (State of Maharastra Vs. Rajendra and others)
11) 2015 AIR SCW 4434 ( V.K. Mishra and Anr.
Vs. State of Uttarkand and Anr. Rahul Mishra Vs. State of Uttarkand and Anr.)
12) (2015) 1 SCC 797 (Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others)
13) 2017 CriLJ 2018 ( State Vs. Arjun Manikappa Nagure and Ors.
14) 2017 CriLJ 3717 (Kamraj Vs. State)
15) AIR 2018 SCC 5719 ( Jagjit singh Vs. State of Punjab)
16) 2018 CriLJ 593 (State V Mallikarjun Reddy)
17) (2019) 9 SCC 138 (Jagdish Chand and another Vs. State of Haryana)
18) 2019 SCC online 1628 (Jatinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana)
19) 2020 SCC online SC 87 (Kashmira Devi Vs. State of Uttarkand and others) 15 SC No.69/2009
20) 2018(3) Kar.L.J. 687(DB) (Bhavani Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka)
21) 2019(2) KarLJ 225(SC) ( Mahadevappa Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. By Public prosecutor)
22) 2009(2) Crimes 418(SC) ( Ranbir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Hariyana)
23) 1984 CrlLJ 1423 (Guru Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan)
24) AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 100 (Namdeo Vs. State of Maharastra)
25) 2017 CrilLJ 537 (S.P.S. Rathore Vs. C.B.I. and Anr.)
26) 2020 SCC online SC 571 (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others)
27) AIR Online 2020 All 2033. (M/s. Dharam Das Vs. M/s. State of U.P.)
28) (2009)12 SCC 498 ( Kanthilal Vs. Stateof Rajasthan)
29) (2010) 12 SCC 350 (Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Hariyana).
11. Heard the arguments of Sri. SNS learned counsel for accused No.1 and heard the arguments of Sri VRB learned counsel for accused No. 3 and 4. Sri.VRB advocate relied on following decisions :- 16 SC No.69/2009
1) 2009 AIR SCW 3491 ( U.Suvetha Vs. State by Inspector of Police & Anr.)
2) ILR 2016 KAR 4531( State by Sanjayanagar PS, Bangaluru Vs. Deepak Kumar and Ors)
12. The following points arise for my consideration:-
(1) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that accused
No.1 along with his mother accused No.2 and with the abetment of accused No.3 and 4 took dowry in the form of 283 grams of gold ornaments (33 grams for accused No.1 and 250 grams for the bride) on 29.8.2005 at the time of the marriage of accused No.1 with deceased Smt. B.V.Mamatha at Thirumala Kalyana Mantapa, Chennarayapatna and prior to that in the house of Cw-1 Venkataswamy at No.189, Bagur road, Shanthi Nagara, 2nd cross, Chennarayapatna town and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 3 of D.P. Act ?
(2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused 17 SC No.69/2009 No.1 along with his deceased mother accused No.2 with the abetment of accused No.3 and 4 demanded dowry prior to the marriage of accused No.1 with deceased Smt. B.V.Mamatha in the above said house of Cw-1 and again demanded dowry after the marriage of accused No.1 with deceased Smt. B.V.Mamatha in the house of accused No.1 and 2 at BTM Layout, IInd stage, Bengaluru thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 4 of D.P. Act 1961 ?
(3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1,3 and 4 along with accused No.2, being the husband and relatives of the husband of deceased Smt. B.V.Mamatha, in their house at BTM Layout, Iind stage, Bengaluru and in the house of her parents at No.189, Bagur road, Shanthi Nagara, 2nd cross, Chennarayapatna town in furtherance of their common intention subjected said Smt. B.V.Mamatha to cruelty with a view to coercing her and her 18 SC No.69/2009 parents to meet their unlawful demand of dowry and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC R/w. Section 34 of IPC?
(4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Smt. B.V.Mamatha was caused in the house of accused No.1 and 2 at BTM layout, IInd stage, Bengaluru otherwise than under normal circumstances, on 20.2.2008 at 1.30 p.m., which was within 7 years of her marriage with accused No.1, as she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by accused No.1, 3 and 4 along with accused No.2, in connection with demand for dowry and thereby committed dowry death and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC?
(5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1, 3 and 4 along with accused No.2, on 20.2.2008 at 1.30 p.m., in the house of 19 SC No.69/2009 accused No.1 and 2 at BTM Layout, IInd stage, Bengaluru abetted the commission of suicide by Smt. B.V.Mamatha and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC?
(6) What order?
13. My findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1 .. In the Negative.
Point No.2 .. In the Negative.
Point No.3 .. In the Negative.
Point No.4 .. In the Negative.
Point No.5 .. In the Negative.
Point No.6 .. As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
14. Point No's.1 to 5:- As these points are interlinked with each other, hence they are taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence on record.
20 SC No.69/2009
15. Undisputed facts:-
Deceased Smt. B.V. Mamatha was the daughter of Cw- 1 B.N.Venkataswamy and Cw-2 Smt. Nanjamma. Cw-3 B.V.Madhu is the brother of the deceased. They are the residents of house No. 189, Bagur road, Shanthinagar 2 nd cross, Chennarayapatna town, Hassan Dist. The marriage of deceased B.V.Mamatha took place on 29.8.2005 at Thirumala Kalyana mantapa Chennaraya patna with accused No.1. Accused No.2 was the mother of accused No.1. Accused No.l and 2 are the residents of BTM Layout, IInd stage, Bengaluru. Accused No.3 Smt. Yashodamma is the sister of accused No.2 Smt. Lalithamma, accused No.4 is the husband of accused No.3. Accused No.3 and 4 have a daughter by name Ms. Sneha, who has been examined as DW-5. Due to the wedlock with accused No.1, deceased Smt. B.V.Mamatha gave birth to a male child on 16.1.2007. On 20.2.2008 in 21 SC No.69/2009 between 1 p.m. to 1.30 p.m., Smt. B.V.Mamatha committed suicide by hanging.
Dowry demand before marriage:
16. Ex.P-1 is the complaint lodged by Pw-1 B.N.Venkataswamy, father of the deceased. In his complaint he has stated that they have performed the marriage of his daughter B.V. Mamatha with accused No.1 in the month of August 2005 at Chennarayanpatna. At that time he had given gold ornaments weighing 300 grams to his daughter. In the complaint nothing has been stated regarding demand of dowry before the marriage and taking of dowry by accused persons at the time of marriage. It is only stated that they had given gold ornaments weighing 300 grams to his daughter. The above complaint was lodged at 2.30 a.m. on 21.2.2008.
17. The police have recorded the further statement of Pw-1 on 6.5.2008. In this further statement Pw-1 has stated in detail regarding the demand of dowry and 22 SC No.69/2009 taking of dowry by the accused persons. It is stated that about 2 months prior to the marriage, accused No. 1 to 4 came to the house of Pw- 1 along with Pw-4(Cw-6) Suma and her husband Cw-7 Manju. During the marriage negotiations accused No.4 demanded dowry i.e., cash of Rs. 3 lakhs and 500 grams of gold and also to bear the marriage expenses. But, Pw-1 told that he would give 150 grams of gold ornaments and bear the expenses of the marriage. Finally, the accused persons agreed to receive dowry of 250 grams of gold and in addition to that a gold ring, a gold chain and gold bracelet to accused No.1.Pw-1 has stated that he has met the expenses of the marriage. It is stated that on the date of engagement, accused No.1 was given a gold ring and on the date of marriage he was given a gold chain weighing 16 grams, a bracelet weighing 19 grams. The gold ornaments weighing 250 grams was given to the bride.
23 SC No.69/2009
18. Pw-1 in his evidence has reiterated that the accused persons demanded a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs and 500 grams of gold ornaments, but he did not agree to the same, finally, he agreed to give gold ornaments of 250 grams to the bride and gold chain, gold ring and gold bracelet, shoes, suit and watch to accused No.1. Accordingly, he has given the gold and other articles to bride and accused No.1.
19. Pw-1 has stated that the accused persons demanded Rs. 3 Lakhs as dowry to fulfill the promise made by them and to give a house to the daughter of accused No.2 at the time of her marriage. But, this fact has not been stated either in the complaint or in the further statement of Pw-1.
20. Pw-1 has produced bills of Ramya Jewellers marked as Ex.P-16 to P-21 to show that he has got prepared the gold ornaments to give it to the bride at the time of marriage as per the demand of accused persons. 24 SC No.69/2009 Ex.P-16 to P-21 shows that these were the bills issued from Ramya Jewellers, Gandhi Bazzar, Hassan on various dates from 24.8.2004 till 25.8.2005. But these bills does not show the name of customer/purchaser.
21. However, in order to prove these bills prosecution has examined Pw-7/Cw-13 Ravi H.P. He has stated in his evidence that he is running a shop by name Ramya Jewelleries in Hassan since last 18 years. He and his paternal uncle Sathish together run the said business. However, in the cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused No. 1 and 2, he has stated that the license in respect of said jewellery shop is in the name of said Satish and he has not produced any document to show that he is having any right, interest in the said shop. In the cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused No. 3 and 4, he has stated that said Sathish is hale and healthy. But, the said Sathish has not been examined before the court. From the cross- 25 SC No.69/2009 examination, it appears that in the year 2005, he was studying SSLC. At the time of his giving evidence on 13.3.2017, he was aged 28 years, hence, in the year 2005 he was aged 16 years. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the jewellery bills as per Ex.P-16 to P-21, are the bills given by him for preparation of golden jewellery. Considering the evidence available on record it is difficult to accept that Pw-1 or his wife Pw-2, has got prepared the gold jewelleries from Pw-7 and Ex.P-16 to P-21 were the bills issued by Pw-7 for that purpose. Moreover there is nothing to show those bills were pertaining to the jewelleries which were given as dowry by Pw-1 during the marriage of his daughter. There is also no document to show the purchase of gold ring, gold chain and gold bracelet said to have been given to accused No.1 as dowry.
22. Pw-2 Madhu, is the brother of the deceased and son of Pw-1. He has stated that his father has performed 26 SC No.69/2009 the marriage of his sister B.V. Mamatha with accused No.1 on 29.8.2005 by bearing all the expenses of the marriage. About 2 months prior to the marriage accused persons came to see his sister, and when the proposal was accepted to them they came to marriage negotiations. The accused persons demanded Rs. 3 Lakh in cash and ½ kg of gold and also to bear the expenses of the marriage. But his father Pw-1 told that he would give gold ornaments weighing 150 grams, but the accused persons did not agree to the same, finally his father agreed to give 250 grams gold ornaments and also to bear the expenses of the marriage. Further, on the demand of the accused persons, his father agreed to give a gold chain, a gold bracelet and a gold ring, a wrist watch, suit and shoes to accused No.1. On the date of engagement his father gave a gold ring weighing 10 grams to accused No.1, on the date of marriage he gave a gold chain, a gold bracelet, a gold ring, wrist watch, suit 27 SC No.69/2009 and shoes to accused No.1. Further on the date of marriage gold ornaments weighing more than 250 grams were given to his sister as demanded by the accused persons.
23. Pw-3/Cw-5 Krishnegowda has stated in his evidence that deceased B.V. Mamatha is the daughter of his co-brother. He has stated in his evidence that during the marriage negotiations accused persons demanded dowry in the form of Rs. 3 Lakhs in cash and gold ornaments weighing 500 grams, but Pw-1 told that he would give 150 grams of gold ornaments and bear the expenses of the marriage. Finally it was agreed that 250 grams of gold ornaments has to be given to the bride and a bracelet, a wrist watch and a suit were agreed to be given to accused No.1. At the time of engagement accused No.1 and deceased Mamatha exchanged gold rings.
24. In his cross-examination, Pw-3 has stated that at the time of marriage accused No.1 was given a sum of 28 SC No.69/2009 Rs. 50,000/- to purchase cloths, but he has not seen the same. Accused No.1 had brought Thali and earrings to the bride. He (Pw-3) himself has given bracelet and gold chain to accused No.1. Apart from that Smt. B.V. Mamatha was given 250 grams of gold ornaments.
25. Pw-4 /Cw-6 Suma @ Sumithra has stated that Pw-1 is her relative, she was present during the marriage negotiations. The accused persons demanded cash of Rs. 5 lakh and ½ kg of gold as dowry. But, thereafter they demanded at least 3 lakh rupees in cash and ½ kg of gold as dowry but, Pw-1 told that he would give gold ornaments weighing 150-180 grams and bear the expenses of the marriage, finally it was agreed to give 250 grams of gold ornaments to the bride and a bracelet and a gold chain and a ring to the accused No.1. Accused No.1 and deceased Smt. B.V. Mamatha exchanged gold rings during the engagement.
29 SC No.69/2009
26. In her cross-examination, Pw-4 has stated that one Somanna @ Swamy was the mediator during the marriage negotiations and he was present till the date of marriage and he knows about the marriage negotiations and marriage of accused No.1 with deceased Smt. B.V.Mamatha. Further, Pw-4 has stated that she does not know about giving gold ornaments as she has not attended the marriage function.
27. Pw-5/Cw-9 H.J.Paramesh is the cousin of Pw-1. He has stated that as demanded by the accused persons 300 grams of gold was given and marriage expenses were born by Pw-1. He has stated that he has not participated in the marriage negotiations, Pw-1 informed him about the details of the negotiations through telephone.
28. Pw-6/Cw-8 Srinivas is the elder brother of Pw-1. He has also stated that he has not participated in the marriage negotiations, but he has attended the engagement ceremony. It is his evidence that Pw-1 has 30 SC No.69/2009 performed the marriage by giving whatever demanded by the accused persons.
29. In the evidence of above witnesses it has been stated that the accused persons demanded dowry of Rs. 3 Lakh and ½ kg of gold and finally they agreed to take dowry of 250 grams gold and in addition to that gold chain, gold bracelet and gold ring to accused No.1. According to the prosecution witnesses 250 grams of gold was given to the bride as gold ornaments and she was wearing the same at the time of the marriage. As already stated in the complaint as per Ex.P-1, it is not stated that gold ornaments were given to the bride as dowry. Pw-4 though stated that she was present at the time of marriage negotiations she has not attended the marriage and therefore she does not know about giving the jewels as demanded by the accused persons. Pw-5 and 6 though they were present at the time of marriage, they were not present at the time of marriage negotiations. The 31 SC No.69/2009 evidence shows that gold rings were exchanged by bride and bridegroom at the time of engagement and accused No.1 gave Thali and earrings to the bride. If really the accused persons wanted money to purchase a house to the sister of accused No.1, they would not have agreed to receive the gold ornaments but they have demanded for money as dowry. In the complaint there is nothing regarding demand of money by the accused persons. It is true that at the time of giving the complaint Pw-1 was under mental agony and trauma as he had lost his daughter just a few hours before lodging the complaint and therefore one cannot expect all the allegations in the said complaint, but the complaint shows that after the marriage the accused persons were demanding the deceased to bring money from her parents house and such demand led to the death of his daughter. Under such circumstances if accused persons have demanded dowry before the marriage, definitely it would have found 32 SC No.69/2009 a place in the complaint as per Ex.P-1. The accused persons have produced evidence before the court to show that he has bought gold ornaments to the deceased after the marriage on various occasions, such being the case it is difficult to accept that the accused persons demanded dowry before the marriage and took dowry in the form of gold ornaments of 250 grams to the bride and 33 grams to the accused No.1. Under the circumstances of the case, parents of the deceased giving gold ornaments on their own to their daughter at the time of her marriage cannot be ruled out.
Ill-treatment and dowry demand after marriage:
30. In the complaint as per Ex.P-1, it has been stated that recently accused No.1 to 4 along with daughter of accused No.3 and 4 by name Sneha started ill-treating Smt. B.V.Mamatha by demanding money from her father out of the retirement benefits he got during his retirement, failing which she has to go out of their house. 33 SC No.69/2009 In the further statement of Cw-1/Pw-1, he has stated regarding the ill-treatment and demand of money in detail, he has stated that after the marriage his daughter was residing with accused No.1 and 2 in the house of accused No.1 and 2 at Mico layout in Bengaluru city and she was looked after well for about 6 months. Thereafter they came to know from her that accused persons started ill-treating her she was not cleaning the house properly, by demanding money from her parents, by saying that she has brought misfortune to their house etc., Further, she informed him that one day when she forgot to bring milk accused No.3 abused her badly. In the month of October 2006 also, accused No.3 teased them by saying that they are not able to give money as demanded by them. When she went back to her husband's house after her delivery, again she was ill-treated by the accused persons by demanding money.
34 SC No.69/2009
31. Pw-1 has stated in his evidence that for about 4- 5 months after the marriage his daughter was living happily and thereafter whenever she used to come to his house she used to be in a sad mood and on enquiry, she told that accused No.1 and 2 used to ill-treat her and whenever accused No.3 and 4 visited the house of accused No.1 and 2 they used to instigate accused No.1 and 2 to ill-treat her. Accused No.3 used to tell accused No.2 to make the deceased to do all the work. Further they used to demand money for giving it to the daughter of accused No.2. Accused No.2 was demanding money from her father from the money he got from his retirement benefits. In the month of May 2006 during Ashada month when deceased had come to her parents house she informed regarding the mental and physical ill-treatment given to her. Due to the same, one day she had taken sleeping pills and fell unconscious. Thereafter, Pw-1 called accused No.2 to 4 to his house and enquired 35 SC No.69/2009 with them as to why they were ill-treating her. At that time accused No.3 and 4 told him that if deceased dies they would perform another marriage to accused No.1. For about 20 days there was no communication from accused No.1, thereafter he started coming to the house of Pw-1. After the completion of Ashada month accused No.1 asked the deceased to come to his house but her parents did not agree to the same as they were apprehending that the accused persons would again ill- treat her. Thereafter, when she was 3 months pregnant they sent her to her husband's house by advising accused No.1 not to ill-treat her. But after a few days accused persons again started ill-treating by demanding money. When she was finding pregnant they brought her back to their house, during that time also deceased used to talk through phone and she used to weep. On 16.1.2007, she gave birth to a male child, thereafter accused No.1 used to come to see her and the child, but 36 SC No.69/2009 he used to ask her whether they have arranged for money. When Pw-1 told him that he would arrange the naming ceremony of the child, accused No.1 did not agree to the same saying that if money was not arranged, he would not come for naming ceremony. Therefore, they have only performed the pooja and they have not performed the naming ceremony. Accused No.1 also threatened that if his demand for money was not met he would give divorce to his daughter. After 9 months of the delivery, Pw-1 and his son left his daughter and baby to the house of accused No.1 and 2 and they informed accused No.1 and 2 that they would give money after arrangement of money. One day when his son Pw-2 had been to the house of accused No.1 deceased went out of the house along with her husband and child, but when they were coming back they forgot to bring milk, at that time accused No.3 abused the deceased. Deceased used 37 SC No.69/2009 to tell Pw-1 that in addition to feed her child she had to feed her husband also.
32. In the cross-examination, Pw-1 has stated that he, his wife Cw-2 and son Pw-2 used to visit the house of accused No.1 and 2, once in a month or once in 1½ month. Further he has stated that sometimes his wife alone used to visit their house and sometimes she used to visit their house along with their son Pw-2. It is his evidence that he does not remember whether his wife used to visit the house of accused No.1 and 2 whenever there was special functions in their house. He has stated that he also often used to visit their house to see his daughter and grand son. Accused No.1 used to regularly visit their house whenever his deceased daughter was in his house. His son Pw-2 was working in Bengaluru and he used to regularly visit the house of accused No.1. He knows that accused No.1 and 2 performing flowering ceremony (Seemantha) when his daughter was pregnant 38 SC No.69/2009 and when she was 5 months pregnant he brought her to his house, thereafter accused No.1 used to come to his house to see his wife. Whenever accused visited their house they used to give special treatment to him. After the delivery of his daughter on 16.1.2007, accused No.1 and 2 came to the hospital from Bengaluru and accused No.3 and 4 came to the hospital from Chennarayapatna to see the baby. After 9 months from the date of delivery he had sent his daughter and grand son to the house of accused No.1 and 2. Accused No.1 has performed the naming ceremony in his house, for which he and his wife attended. Whenever they visited the house of accused No.1 and 2, out of the 2 bedrooms in one bedroom accused No.1 and deceased used to sleep and in another bedroom he and his wife used to sleep, during that time accused No.2 used to sleep in the hall alone.
33. The counsel for accused No.1 and 2 confronted some photographs and got marked the same as Ex.D-1 to 39 SC No.69/2009 D-19. Those photographs appears to be the photographs taken during the initial period of the marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased, when deceased was pregnant, when they were celebrating Deewali and other functions, when they were with the son of deceased. Those photographs shows that the accused No.1 and 2 and Pw- 1, Cw-2 and Pw-3 were in cordial terms, and accused No.1 and deceased were living happily. During the evidence of Dw-1, he has got some more photos which are marked as Ex.D-38 to D-166, all these photographs show that the deceased was living happily with her husband and mother-in-law ie., accused No.1 and 2. The photographs produced by the accused were since from the time of their marriage, even for a few days prior to her death.
34. Pw-2 Madhu has stated in his evidence that after the marriage deceased was living with her husband accused No.1 and mother in law accused No.2 in one out 40 SC No.69/2009 of the five houses belonging to them in BTM Layout, Bengaluru. After the marriage he and his parents had visited their house at Bengaluru so also accused No.1 and his sister had visited their house at Chennaraya- patna several times. However, whenever his sister visited their house at Chennaraya patna, she was not in a lively mood as earlier. When his parents observed and enquired regarding the same, she told about the difficulties she was facing in the house of her husband. She told that accused No.1 and 2 had promised to give one house out of their five houses to the sister of accused No.1 at the time of her marriage, therefore husband and relatives of the sister of accused No.1 used to demand for the said money. The accused No.1 and 2 wanted to retain the said house and to give money to the sister of accused No.1 by taking money from his parents(Parents of deceased Mamatha) and for that reason they were ill-treating her. Accused No.3 and 4 were doing Saree business in 41 SC No.69/2009 Chennaraypatna and they used to go to Bengaluru for saree purchase and they used to stay in the house of accused No.1and 2, at that time accused No.3 and 4 also instigated accused No.1and 2 to demand money from the his parents. They were telling her to get money from her father out of the retirement benefits he received at the time of his retirement. But, deceased having aware of the financial condition of her parents have not asked money with her parents, therefore the accused persons used to tease her and also they were telling her that she does not know to cook also. About 2 times accused No.1 had beaten her in connection with money matter. When his parents had gone to the house of accused No.1 and 2, they enquired with them as to why they were ill-treating their daughter for money, though they have not agreed to give money at the time of the marriage. When his sister had come to Chennarayapatna during Aashada month, on 24.5.2006 she had taken sleeping pills and fell 42 SC No.69/2009 unconscious as accused No.1 had quarreled with her through phone on the previous day in connection with respect of money and he had told her that if she does not give money they would not stop ill-treating her. After a few days, as called by his father, accused No.1 to 4 came to the house of his father at Chennarayapatna, at that time his father enquired them as to why they were ill- treating her and told that due to their ill-treatment she has tried to commit suicide, for which the accused persons told that if she wants to die, let her die and they can perform another marriage for accused No.1. When his sister was 3 months pregnant, accused No.1 asked to send her to his house, but his sister did not want to go to his house apprehending their ill-treatment and she told that she would continue to live in Chennarayapatna and earn her livelihood by working as a teacher in a Convent. Thereafter accused No.1 took her to his house by promising that he would not ill-treat her. After one month 43 SC No.69/2009 when he (Pw-2) had been to the house of accused No.1, his sister and accused no.1 had gone out for dinner and when they came late, accused No.3 and 4 started quarreling with his sister. When she became 5 months pregnant she was again brought back to her parents house at Chennarayapatna, after few days accused No.1 started calling her late night demanding money from her parents. In the month of October 2006, when all the accused persons came to see his sister they again demanded to make arrangements for money. Whenever they use to ask money his sister used to feel sad. On 16.1.2007, she delivered a male baby and accused No.1 to 4 had come to see her at that time, thereafter accused No.1 used to come to see the baby once in a month. But whenever his (Pw-2) parents asked accused No.1 that they were going to perform the naming ceremony of the baby, he told them not to perform the same unless they gave the money demanded by him, therefore they have 44 SC No.69/2009 not performed the naming ceremony, on the other hand they have only performed a pooja. In the month of September 2007, they sent her back to her husband's house and his father told accused No.1 that he would pay the money after arranging for the same. After about one month, when accused No.1 was asked to send his wife and baby to Chennarayapatna he refused to the same. Once when he (Pw-2) had been to the house of accused No.1, accused No.1 to 4 had quarreled with his sister for the reason that she forgot to bring milk. On 13.12.2007, the naming ceremony of the baby was arranged in the house of accused No.1, but only his parents were invited to the same, he (Pw-2) was not invited. Thereafter he stopped going to the house of accused No.1.
35. In his cross-examination, Pw-2 has stated that for a few days after the marriage, accused No.1 and his sister living cordially, they used to come to their house at Chennarayapatna, whenever there were special 45 SC No.69/2009 functions. He also brought his wife to some functions. He had attended the flowering ceremony of his sister when she was pregnant, again he said that he did not go inside the house, but he was sitting in the park and he came back after having food in the said function. He came to know that Accused No.1 had given a pendent to his sister in the said function. His mother had attended the house warming ceremony of the sister of accused No.1, but he does not know whether his mother had stayed in their house for about 2-3 days. Accused No.1 had visited several times their house when his sister was in their house during her pregnancy. The naming ceremony of the his child was also performed in the house of accused No.1 though it is a tradition to perform the naming ceremony in the parents house of the mother. He does not have any photographs of the naming ceremony which his parents performed in their house at Chennaraya patna. He has not attended the naming ceremony in the 46 SC No.69/2009 house of accused as he was not called to the said function. Accused No.1 had agreed to send his sister (deceased) 2 days prior to the foundation laying ceremony at Chennarayapatna.
36. Pw-3 has stated in his evidence that his wife Cw-4 Manjula had informed him that deceased used to tell her about the ill-treatment meted out by her in her husband's house. But Cw-4 has not been examined before the court.
37. Pw-5/Cw-9 H.J.Paramesh has stated in his evidence that Pw-1 had informed him that his daughter used to tell him about the ill-treatment given to her in his husband's house. Pw-6/Cw-8 Srinivas has also stated the same in his evidence. Therefore the evidence of Pw-5 and 6 is to the effect that they heard about the ill- treatment to deceased from Pw-1.
38. It is the evidence of Pw-1 and 2 that accused persons used to demand money for the purchase of the 47 SC No.69/2009 house to the sister of accused No.1. It has not been stated in the complaint as per Ex.P-1. In the cross- examination of Pw-1, he has stated that he heard about sister of accused No.1 and her husband have got constructed a new house in Bengaluru. There is no evidence as to when the said house was constructed. It is not the evidence of Pw-1 that the said house was got constructed by them after the death of his daughter. Pw-2 has stated in his evidence that to the house warming ceremony of the house of the sister of accused No.1, his mother had attended. Therefore, it is clear that before the death of his sister, sister of accused No.1 had constructed the new house in Bengaluru. When sister of accused No.1 had already constructed the house, the chances of accused persons demanding money for purchasing a house to the sister of accused No.1, is less.
39. Pw-1 has stated that the accused persons have performed the flowering ceremony at Bengaluru. Pw-2 48 SC No.69/2009 has stated that he had attended the flowering ceremony' but he did not go inside the house of the accused persons. It is his evidence that he had food in the said ceremony. It is his evidence that he heard that the accused No.1 had purchased a pendent to his sister for flowering ceremony. From the evidence of Pw-1and 2 it can be clearly made out that accused No.1 and 2 had performed flowering ceremony when deceased was pregnant and at that time accused No.1 had given a pendent to her as gift. The photographs produced shows that the deceased was happy during her flowering ceremony.
40. The evidence of Pw-1 and 2 clearly shows that after the deceased had come to their house at Chennarayapatna for delivery when she was 5 months pregnant, accused No.1 regularly visiting their house to see her. Further, it is their evidence that after delivery accused No.1 to 4 had visited her and baby in the 49 SC No.69/2009 hospital even after discharge from the hospital till she returned to the house of accused No.1and 2, accused No.1 used to visit her in her parents house at Chennarayapatna.
41. Pw-1 and 2 have stated that accused No.1 did not allow them to perform the naming ceremony of the baby in their house. But, they have clearly stated that accused No.1 has performed the Cradling/naming ceremony in his house. They have admitted that the naming ceremony of the baby of Pw-2 was performed in the parents house of wife of Pw-2. Therefore, it appears that it is a tradition to perform the naming ceremony in the parents house of the mother of the child. The accused No.1 who has been examined as Dw-1 has stated that in order to avoid financial burden to the parents of his wife he has performed the naming ceremony of his child in his house. From the evidence of Pw-2, it appears that his parents had attended the naming ceremony but he has 50 SC No.69/2009 not attended the naming ceremony, which has taken place in the house of accused No.1.
42. The photographs produced by the accused shows that the accused persons have celebrated the first birthday of the baby of deceased in their house. It appears that it was just a month prior to the death of the deceased. Because the baby was born on 16.1.2007 therefore birthday was celebrated on 16.1.2008. It appears that the deceased happily participated in the said birthday function.
43. The evidence clearly shows that accused No.1 had purchased a gold ornament to his wife on the valentine's day of the year 2008 i.e., on 14.2.2008 just 6 days prior to the death of the deceased. Pw-2 has admitted that Ex. D-16 is the photograph his sister and her child taken in a jewellery shop. Ex.D-35 is a Bill of Bhima jewellers in the name of accused No.1 dt: 14.2.2008 regarding purchase of a broad bangle and a plain chain of worth Rs. 51 SC No.69/2009 89,666/-. Ex.D-37 shows that he had purchased silver articles of worth Rs. 2,686/- on the same day. On going through the evidence available before the court, it cannot be disbelieved that accused No.1 had purchased gold ornaments to his wife on the occasion of valentine's day on 14.2.2008.
44. The documents produced by the accused persons show that Accused No.1 has purchased gold locket and studs on 29.8.2006 from Bhima jewellers and necklace, pendent and chain on 20.4.2007 from Devasam jewellers. Further, the photographs show that during the Deepavali festival of the year 2007, the deceased and child celebrated the festival happily along with the accused No.2. The photographs show that the deceased was happy with accused No.1 and 2 and her child, after she came back to the house of accused No.1 and 2. The photographs show that she has happily celebrated the birthday of her son. The accused persons have also 52 SC No.69/2009 produced the medical documents of the deceased to show that during her pregnancy she was regularly visiting the doctor for medical check-up. It appears from the fact that those medical documents were in the custody of accused no.1, that he was providing medical treatment to her during her pregnancy and delivery. The above documents does not show that the accused No.1 and 2 ill-treated the deceased in any manner. It appears that accused No.1 and 2 get along with her very well during her lifetime.
45. From the evidence it appears that accused No.1 used to visit the house of Pw-1 at Chennarayapatna along with his wife. His in-laws also were visiting them in his house, he was treating them well and he used to give respect to them. He used to take his wife to outside for food, he provided medical treatment, he bought washing machine to his house, he bought gold ornaments to her, he arranged flowering ceremony during her pregnancy, after the birth of son he arranged naming ceremony and 53 SC No.69/2009 birthday function etc., Considering the evidence available on record, it is difficult to accept that he was ill-treating his wife after the marriage particularly for money when he himself brought gold ornaments to his wife by spending money.
Death note:
46. In the chief examination of Pw-1, he has not stated anything about the death note, during his cross- examination by accused No.1 and 2, he has stated that at the time of the death of his daughter, he was shown her death note. However, he has denied the suggestion that the death note is in the hand writing of his daughter. During the cross-examination of Pw-1, he has stated that in Victoria Hospital, the Tahsildar has shown a death note to him, but it is his evidence that he cannot identify the handwriting in the said death note. He has admitted that in the said death note it is written that no one is responsible for her death. Pw-1 admitted Ex.P-22 54 SC No.69/2009 as the death note shown to him by the Tahsildar in Victoria Hospital. On going through Ex.P-22 death note it is written in it as under:
" ನನನ ಸಸವಗಗ ಮತತತ ಈ ನರಸರರಕಗಕ ನಸನಗನ ಕಸರಣ. ನನನನದ ಗಗಗತತಲಲರಗ ಎನಸದರಗ ತಪಸಪಗದದರಗ ಕಮಸ. ನನನ ಮಗನನತನ ಚಗನಸನಗ ನಗಗನಡಕಗಗಳಳ. ಅಪಪ ಅಮಮ ನಮಮನತನ ಬಟತಟ ಹಗಗನಗಲತ ತತನಬಸ ಕಷಟ ಆಗತತತರಗ.
ಇನತ ನಮಮ sd/-"
47. Pw-2 has stated in his evidence that during the inquest conducted by the Tahsildar, he informed that his sister has written a death note, but it is his evidence that he was not shown the same.
48. Pw-9 B.Boraiah was the Tahsildar who has conducted inquest on the dead-body of deceased Mamatha. In his chief examination he has not stated anything about finding the death note. But, in his cross examination by learned counsel for A-3 and 4, he has stated that Pw-1, Pw-2, Pw-5 Paramesh, Pw-6 Srinivas, 55 SC No.69/2009 have given statement before him that they came to know about the death note said to have been written by deceased Mamatha. It is his evidence that he has not made any effort to verify the death note referred by them in their statements.
49. Pw-13 Ashwatha Narayana shetty was the Head constable of Mico Layout P.S., he has stated that immediately after registering the case he and his staff went to the place of incident, in the bed room where deceased has committed suicide by hanging, he found a note on the bed and he has recovered the same. At that time he has prepared the mahazar as per Ex.P-28. He has identified the said note as Ex.P-22. He has admitted that in the said note it was written that ''for her death no one is responsible'.
50. As already stated Pw-1 father of the deceased has not admitted the hand writing in the death note as the handwriting of his deceased daughter. The handwriting in 56 SC No.69/2009 the said note is in Kannada and the signature is said to be of deceased. It has been neatly written, it does not appear that it has been written under any thereat or duress. The evidence of Pw-13 clearly shows that the said note was recovered from the place of incident. Under such circumstances, it is for the prosecution to disprove the handwriting and signature found in the death note were not that of the deceased Mamatha. Pw-1, father of the deceased has stated in his evidence that he has verified the death note but he could not identify the handwriting as that of his daughter. However, he has stated that he does not have any document which is having the handwriting of his daughter. It is his evidence that his daughter has passed B.Sc., but her B.Sc., note books were sold to scrap shop and some of them were burnt. He has stated that he does not know what happened to the SSLC, PUC, degree certificate and mark cards. He does not remember whether there is any Bank 57 SC No.69/2009 account of deceased Mamatha. It is difficult to accept the evidence of Pw-1 that there is no document which contains the admitted hand writing and signature of deceased Mamatha. When it is the evidence of prosecution witnesses themselves that the death note was found in the place of incident, it is for the prosecution to prove that the death note was manipulated, forged or created or got written by using force, threat and pressure. But no such evidence has been led to dispute the death note. Therefore, it is difficult to disbelieve the death note wherein it was written by deceased Mamatha that no- one was responsible for her death. The death note goes against the prosecution case that the deceased Mamatha committed suicide due to the cruelty meted out to her by the accused persons by demanding dowry. 58 SC No.69/2009
The love affair of Pw-2/Cw-3 Madhu and Sneha daughter of accused No.3 and 4:
51. The accused persons have taken up a defense that there was a love affair between Pw-2 Madhu and Sneha daughter of accused No.3 and 4. It was not agreeable to Pw-1 and his wife Cw-2. There used to be quarrel in connection with the same. Deceased Mamatha was not against their marriage, but she was fed up with the quarrel in respect of their marriage and committed suicide.
52. Pw-1 as well as Pw-2 denied the love affair between Pw-2 and Sneha, but the accused persons brought out in the cross-examination of Pw-2 that there was love affair between himself and Sneha and they had decided to marry. Pw-1 has stated that he does not know that there was love affair between his son Pw-2 and Sneha, and he does not remember that they came near him and his wife for permission to get marry. It is his 59 SC No.69/2009 evidence that he does not know that though he refused to give permission for their marriage they continued with their love affair. It is to be noted that Pw-1 has not denied the relationship between his son Pw-2 and Sneha. Pw-1 has denied the suggestion that Mamatha committed suicide as she was suffered mental agony due to the decision of himself and his wife in respect of the marriage of Pw-2 and Sneha.
53. Pw-2 has stated in his cross-examination that since July 2006 he started talking and meeting Sneha and he was in contact with her till 7.2.2009. Therefore, it is clear that even after the death of deceased Mamatha, he was in touch with Sneha. It is to be noted that said Sneha was arrayed as accused No.5 in the FIR. In spite of that, he did not stop contacting her. Pw-2 has admitted that he had agreed to marry Sneha and he was promising her that he would marry her and he would referring her as his wife in the SMS's sent by him to her. But, it is his 60 SC No.69/2009 evidence that he was saying so dramatically as Sneha used to say the same to him dramatically. It is his evidence that Sneha used to flirt with 3-4 persons in phone in the same manner, so he also used to flirt with her by saying dramatic things to her. His admission shows that he has gone to the extent of saying that due to his efforts she has been dropped from the case. It is to be noted that though her name was in the FIR, while filing the charge-sheet her name was deleted from the charge-sheet. He has admitted that he had sent a romantic greeting card to her as per Ex.D-21 and he has admitted his handwriting and signature in the said greeting card. In it he has referred her as his life partner. But, in his evidence he has denied that he used to meet Sneha on Valentines and he used to give her gifts.
54. The accused No.3 and 4 have examined said Sneha as Dw-5. She has stated in his evidence that she met Pw-2 in the marriage of accused No.1 and deceased 61 SC No.69/2009 Mamatha and Pw-2 had obtained her mobile phone number at that time. Thereafter, while Pw-2 was doing his Engineering in Bhatkal Engineering college, he was doing his project work in Mysore, at that time she was doing her M.Sc., in Mysore University. He had met her in Mysore 2-3 times during that period in the month of August 2006. He has told her that he loves her and he was going to marry her and she also agreed to the same. Thereafter, he had met her parents. In the month of January 2007, she had joined as a lecturer in Garden city college in Bangaluru and in the same year Pw-2 had joined as a lecturer in SRS Engineering college, Bengaluru. They used to meet once in a week or 15 days.
55. Dw-5 has stated that thereafter Pw-2 informed her that from the month of March-April 2007 Pw-2 used to get good proposals, who were ready to give more dowry and therefore his parents were opposing his marriage with her. He had also told her that his parents used to 62 SC No.69/2009 oppose her marriage with Pw-2 as their pair was not looking good and her complexion was not good. In spite of that Pw-2 used to tell her that he would make his parents to agree for their marriage. In the month of May 2007, she heard from Pw-3 Krishnegowda that Pw-2 has left his house by saying that he would marry only her. After 3-4 days, he had met her and told her regarding the quarrel with his parents that has taken place regarding their marriage, however he promised her that he would make them agree to the marriage and he would marry her.
56. Dw-5 has stated that on 24.8.2007, on her birthday he took her to a temple from there to Bhima jewellers and bought ear rings for her. In the month of February 2008 on valentine's day, he had bought a necklace to her from a jewellery shop. She had also given a gold pendent and wallet to him on his birthday. He has given a greeting card to her as per Ex.D-22 on valentine's 63 SC No.69/2009 day. After the death of his sister on 23.8.2008, at 12 midnight he had sent message to her as it was her birthday. Thereafter exchange of SMS and phone calls continued between them till the middle of 2009.
57. Dw-5 had stated that she remained unmarried till the date of her evidence and she remained unmarried as Pw-2 did not marry her due to the opposition of his parents and Pw-2 also cheated her by marrying another lady.
58. The public prosecutor has cross-examined Dw-5. But nothing has been elicited from her to dispute their love affair and Pw-2 failing to marry her after promising her to marry her. The admissions in the cross- examination of Pw-2 corroborates the evidence of Dw-5. Moreover, there are documents such as greeting cards as per Ex.D-21, a bill of Lakshmi gold Khazana, Bengaluru in the name of Pw-2 dt: 14. 2.2008 regarding purchase of stud and necklace worth Rs. 20,700/-, marked as Ex. 64 SC No.69/2009 D-21. Ex.D-20 has been got marked by accused No.3 and 4 by confronting the same. Therefore, it clearly supports the evidence of Dw-5 that Pw-2 had given her gold ornaments as gift on valentine's day i.e., on 14.2.2008.
59. There is no admission from Pws 1 and 2 that the love affair between Pw-2 and Sneha was the reason for deceased Mamatha committing suicide. It is to be noted that once it has been suggested that Pw-1 and 2 that deceased Mamatha was in favour of their marriage and again it was suggested that she was against the said marriage. However, it can be clearly made out that there was a serious relationship between Pw-2 and Dw-5 Sneha and they had decided to marry. However Pw-1 and 2 have denied the entire love affair of Pw-2 and Dw- 5 Sneha, they suppressed the relationship between Pw-2 and Dw-5. If really the love affair between them was not the reason for the death of deceased Mamatha, there was no need for them to suppress the relationship between 65 SC No.69/2009 Pw-2 and Dw-5. The suppression of their relationship creates doubt in the prosecution case.
Earlier suicide attempt by deceased Mamatha :
60. Pw-1 has stated in his evidence that in the month of May 2006 deceased Mamatha had come to his house inview of Aashada month. During that time she used to be in sad mood whenever she talk to her husband through phone. One day she fell unconscious in the bed room, immediately she was taken to Bharahti Nursing home for treatment, the doctor informed that she was 1½ month pregnant, there may be some variation in the food and therefore she has fell down due to weakness. After 2-3 days of her discharge from the hospital when she was enquired, she informed regarding ill-treatment in her husband's house by demanding dowry and told that she had taken sleeping pills as she did not want to trouble her parents by asking money from them as they were already in financial difficulties. Pw-1 has stated that 66 SC No.69/2009 those sleeping pills were in the kitchen which was given to him for his shoulder pain, but deceased Mamatha had taken those sleeping pills and fell unconscious.
61. Pw-2 has also stated regarding the same in his evidence.
62. According to Pw-1 himself the doctor told him that she fell unconscious due to variation in food and weakness moreover she was pregnant. The doctor has not stated about deceased taking sleeping pills. If really deceased Mamatha had taken sleeping pills, the doctor would have to come to know about the same. There is no medical evidence to show that deceased had taken sleeping' pills and due to the same she fell unconscious.
Further, for the reasons already discussed above, it cannot be accepted that the deceased had taken sleeping pills due to the ill-treatment meted out to her by the accused persons. The learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 argued that if really the deceased had taken 67 SC No.69/2009 sleeping pills and fell unconscious, it only shows that she was not a mentally strong person and she used to get disturbed for very small things. Considering the evidence available on record such contention of the accused persons cannot be brushed aside totally. Allegations of ill-treatment just before suicide by hanging :
63. The complaint as per Ex.P-1 discloses that in view of the ill-treatment meted out to their daughter, Pw-1 along with his wife Cw-2 went to the house of accused No.1 and 2 on 19.2.2008 in the evening to talk regarding the same with accused No.1 and 2. But, in the further statement of Pw-1 before the police and in his evidence before court, Pw-1 has given a different version. It is his evidence that he went to Bengaluru for treatment for his kidney stone on 19.2.2008 and the doctor asked him to come again on the next day and therefore they went to the house of their daughter i.e,, the house of accused 68 SC No.69/2009 No.1 and 2 in the evening and stayed in the said house on that night. It is not his evidence that he and his wife went to their house to enquire about the ill-treatment to their daughter.
64. Pw-1 has stated in his evidence that on 19.2.2008 at 9.00 - 9.30 p.m., accused No.1 came to the house and they asked him to send their daughter 2 days prior to the date of foundation laying ceremony for their new house at Chennarayapatna. But accused No.1 and 2 abused them and refused to the send her for foundation laying ceremony by saying that Pw-1 cannot give the money as demanded by him and but PW1 can construct new house for himself. At that time deceased was weeping and Pw- 1 and his wife pacified her saying that if she cannot live in the house of her husband they would take her to their house by bringing their village elders.
65. Pw-1 has stated that on the next day at 8 a.m., they went to the hospital at 10 a.m., they called their 69 SC No.69/2009 daughter over phone, at that time in the background he heard accused No.1 and 2 abusing his daughter, he told her not to talk much to them and he would call her back when he finishes his hospital work.
66. But the above fact has not been stated in the complaint as per Ex.P-1. It is stated in the complaint that on 20.2.2008 at about 8.30 a.m., they started from the house of accused No.1 and 2 and went to the hospital and while going back to their village from the bus stand they called their daughter at 1 p.m., but she did not picked up the phone. Therefore, there is nothing in the complaint regarding Pw-1 hearing the accused No.1 and 2 abusing his daughter in the back ground while he has called his daughter at 10 a.m., over phone. Even in the detailed further statement of Pw-1 before the police, the above fact of hearing accused No. 1 and 2 abusing his daughter in the back ground while he had called her over phone, has not been stated. Therefore, the above fact 70 SC No.69/2009 stated in the evidence of Pw-1 is an improvement made to show that deceased was put to ill-treatment just before her death.
67. The evidence shows that Pw-1, his wife and Pw-2 were frequently visiting the house of accused No.1 and 2, whenever they visited they were treated well by accused No.1 and 2. In fact accused No.2 used to leave her bed room to Pw-1 and his wife when they visited their house.
On the previous day of the incident i.e., on 19.2.2008 also Pw-1 and his wife not only visited the house of accused No.1 and 2, but they stayed in their house. If really, the relationship between accused No.1 and 2 with Pw-1 and his wife stained, Pw-1 and his wife would not have stayed in their house on 19.2.2008. The alleged incident that has taken place in the night on 19.2.2008 and in the morning on 20.2.2008, has not been mentioned in Ex.P-1, even in the further statement the fact of Pw-2 calling his daughter at 10 a.m., has not 71 SC No.69/2009 been stated. These facts creates doubt regarding the allegations that deceased Mamatha was subjected to cruelty immediately prior to committing suicide. Conduct of the accused No.1 immediately after suicide by hanging:
68. It is the contention of accused No.1 that on 20.2.2008, he had been to his office while he was in the office, he received telephone call, therefore he came back to his house, found his wife hanging in the bed room, immediately with the help of neighbors he brought her down and took her to Jayadeva hospital in an auto, in the hospital doctors declared her dead and hence he brought her back to his house.
69. Accused No.1 has been examined as Dw-1, he says that there is no document to show that he has taken his wife to Jayadeva hospital and in the said hospital she was declared dead and thereafter she was brought back to his house. If the deceased was taken to Jayadeva 72 SC No.69/2009 hospital and in the said hospital she was declared dead, definitely there would be some document regarding the same. But, Dw-1 has stated that there is no such document. Under such circumstances, the doubt arises as to whether deceased was taken to Jayadeva hospital immediately after she was found hanging in her house.
70. The accused No.1 has examined Dw-3 Raghu B.H. a neighbor. The prosecution has cited him as Cw-10, but they have not examined him before the court, Cw-11 is the mother of DW-3, she is also not examined by the prosecution. Dw-3 has stated in his evidence that on 20.2.2008 at 1 p.m., he heard the scream and knocking the door loudly by accused No.1. Immediately he and others went to the house of accused No.1 and saw deceased hanging in the bedroom, immediately they cut the veil from which she was hanging with the help of a sickle (Kudugolu). Thereafter she was taken to Jayadeva hospital. In the hospital she was declared dead. 73 SC No.69/2009
71. In the absence of any document, the evidence of Dw-3 is not sufficient to prove that the deceased was taken to the hospital. However there is not much in the cross-examination to doubt his evidence regarding remaining aspects are concerned.
72. The evidence of Pw-1 that when he and his wife came to the house of accused No.1 at 1.30 a.m., the deceased was found lying on the hall of the house, cannot be disbelieved. However, there is not much evidence to doubt the conduct of accused No.1 after the death of the deceased. Accused no.1 has not informed the incident to the parents of the deceased immediately. But, according to PW1, at 1.30 p.m., on hearing that his daughter was not well, he immediately rushed to the house of accused persons. It appears that before accused no.1 informing, they reached his house. 74 SC No.69/2009
Decisions:
73. The learned public prosecutor has relied on several decisions, among them some decisions which are relevant to this case are as under:
1) In a decision reported in 2015 AIR SCW 4443 in the case of V.K.Mishra and Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakand and Anr. Rahul Mishra Vs. State of Uttarakand and Anr., the full bench of Hon'ble Supreme court has observed in Para 12 as under:
"12. FIR is not meant to be an enclyclopedia nor is it expected to contain all the details of the prosecution case. It may be sufficient if the broad facts of the prosecution case are stated in the FIR. Complaint was lodged within few hours after the tragic event. Pw-1 has lost his young daughter just married before six weeks in unnatural circumstances. Death of 75 SC No.69/2009 a daughter within few days of marriage, the effect on the mind of the father-PW-1 cannot be measured by any yardstick. While lodging the report Pw-1 must have been in great shock and mentally disturbed. Because of death of his young daughter being grief stricken, it may not have occurred to Pw-1 to narrate all the details of payment of money and the dowry harassment meted out to his daughter. Unless there are indications of fabrication, prosecution version cannot be doubted, merely on the ground that FIR does not contain the details."
74. It is true that the FIR in this case has been lodged in similar situations as noted in the above cited decision. It may be said that in the complaint as per Ex.P-1, Pw-1 has stated the broad facts of the case. However some vital 76 SC No.69/2009 aspects are missing in the complaint. It is not stated that 300 grams of gold was given at the time of marriage as dowry, it is only stated that 300 grams gold ornaments were given to their daughter at the time of the marriage. It is not stated what amount of money was demanded by accused persons as dowry after the marriage. It I sonly stated in the complaint that on 19.2.2008 they went to the house of accused No.1 and 2 to talk to them in respect of their demand of money and they informed accused No.1 and 2 that they would given the money in the coming days. Further it is stated that when they asked to send the deceased to their house, accused No.1 and 2 refused to the same. But several other important aspects which were stated in the further statement and in the evidence of Pw-1, have not been stated in Ex.P-1. When the complaint is in respect of dowry death, the above aspects would not have been omitted to state. Moreover, the detailed further statement of Pw-1 was 77 SC No.69/2009 recorded by the police on 6.5.2008, which was after 2½ months of the complaint. It can be accepted that due to the shock and mental agony suffered by Pw-1 he could not have stated about the above important aspects in the complaint which was lodged after about 12 hours of the death of his daughter. But nothing prevented Pw-1 to give his further statement to the police subsequently without much delay. Under the above circumstances, not stating the vital aspects in the complaint/FIR assumes importance. Therefore, the above decision will not help the prosecution to over come the said lacuna.
2) In the same decision in Para 30 it has been observed as under:-
"30. So far as the suicide note is concerned, Archana is said to have stated that she is taking the step "Suicide" because her mental condition is not good and that nobody should be held responsible for her act. It is 78 SC No.69/2009 pertinent to note that suicide note was not discovered during investigation. but it was later produced by the appellants. When PW- 1(Father of Archana) was confronted with the suicide note, Pw-1 denied it to be in the hand writing of Archana. Appellants have not taken steps to prove the suicide note to be in the handwriting of Archana. Even assuming the suicide note to be true, the fact remains that the death of Archana was unnatural. The contents of the suicide note does not affect consistent version of Pw-1 and Pw-2."
3) In a decision reported in 2015(1) SCC 797 between Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, the Hon'ble Supreme court has observed in para No.11 as under:
79 SC No.69/2009
"11. We may now refer to the suicide note. It, inter alia, states:
"All the doors are closed for me. Besides this, no other way is available to me and I adopted the way which I liked."
The tenor of the suicide note clearly shows that the deceased was in helpless condition and she found no other way to come out of the situation. The suicide note cannot be taken to be enclyclopedia of the entire situation in which the deceased was placed. It is not possible to infer from the said note that the deceased was happy in her matrimonial home. Mere mention that nobody may be held responsible, while also stating that all the doors were closed for her and she had no other way available(except to leave the world), is not enough to exonerate 80 SC No.69/2009 the appellant. When a young married girl finds herself in helpless situation and decides to end her life, in absence of any other circumstance, it is natural to infer that she was unhappy in her matrimonial home.
A suicide note cannot be treated as conclusive of there being no one responsible for the situation when evidence on record categorically points to harassment for dowry."
75. In the present case, the suicide note was recovered by the police officer Pw-13 Ashwatha Narayana shetty, who has conducted spot panchanama at the place of incident. Spot panchanama was prepared in between 3 a.m. to 3.45 a.m. on 21.2.2008 which is within 1 hour of registration of the case. Though the Pw-1 has disputed the handwriting and the signature of the deceased in 81 SC No.69/2009 the note, the prosecution has not taken any steps to prove that it was not the note of deceased. Infact Pw-1 has stated that there was no admitted document with him for the purpose of comparison of handwriting and signature found in the note as per Ex. P-22. When it is a document produced by the prosecution, it is not required for the defence to prove that it is the handwriting and signature of deceased. Further, in this case the defence is able to show that there was some differences in the family of parents of deceased regarding the marriage of her brother Pw-2 with Sneha and that deceased had earlier also attempted to commit suicide by taking sleeping pills. Therefore, it cannot be said that the death note does not affect the evidence of Pw-1 and 2. In the above decision, it I s observed that when a young married girl finds herself in helpless situation and decides to end her life, in absence of any other circumstance, it is natural to 82 SC No.69/2009 infer that she was unhappy in her matrimonial home. But in the present case the defence has brought a circumstance ie., the dispute regarding the marriage of her brother, for her helpless situation.
4) In a decision reported in AIR 2018 SCC 5719, between Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, the Hon'ble Supreme court has observed in para 14 as under:
"14. We have already noticed that the essential ingredients of Section 304-B, IPC as noticed by this Court in Major Singh and another V. State of Punjab(AIR 2015 SC 2081) (supra). Parliament has inserted Section 113-B in the Evidence Act. In order that the presumption therein has to be applied it must be established that soon before her death, such woman must have been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with any 83 SC No.69/2009 demand of dowry. Upon this fact being established, undoubtedly, the court is mandated to assume that the person has indeed caused the dowry death as contemplated in Section 304-B, IPC.
Therefore, the presumption cannot apply unless it is established that soon before her death, a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry. The words "soon before" her death has also been considered in a large number of cases."
But in the present case the prosecution failed to show that soon before the death of the deceased, she was harassed for dowry.
5) In a decision reported in 2019(2) Kar.L.J. 225 (SC) between Mahadevappa V. State of Karnataka rep. 84 SC No.69/2009 By Public prosecutor, the Hon'ble Supreme court has observed in para 31 as under:
"31. In our opinion, there is no reason to discard the evidence of the father and mother of the deceased who are the most natural and material witnesses to speak on such issues. Indeed in such circumstances, the daughter - a newly married girl would always like to first disclose her domestic problems to her mother and father and then to her close relatives because they have access to her and are always helpful in solving her problems."
In the instant case major evidence is of the father of the deceased i.e., Pw-1 and brother of the deceased i.e., Pw-2. Though Cw-2 who is the mother of the deceased is a very important witness who was always with Pw-1 and also with the deceased, has not been examined before the 85 SC No.69/2009 court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the defence taken by the accused persons about the marriage of Pw-2 with Sneha and it was the reason for the death of the deceased, Cw-2 ought to have examined before the court. Non-examination of Cw-2 who is a material witness, is a circumstance which goes against the prosecution case.
6) In a decision reported in (2014) 11 SCC 516 between Ramesh Vithal Patil Vs. State of Karnataka and others, in para 14, it is observed as under:
"14. ..... Besides, merely because the appellant and his father visited the maternal house of the deceased it cannot be presumed that both families maintained cordial relationship and, therefore, the deceased must not have been ill-treated. The trial court has wrongly come to this conclusion, despite there being cogent 86 SC No.69/2009 evidence on record to establish the demand. Pw-1 Bhavakanna's evidence establishes this case of the prosecution. His evidence becomes more acceptable because of the honesty displayed by him. There is no reason to disbelieve his statement that whenever the deceased used to come to their house she used to tell them about the demand for money and gold and the harassment meted out to her in her matrimonial home in that connection."
In the present case, in addition to the evidence that Accused no.1 visited the house of parents house and parents of the deceased visiting the house of accused no.1, there are other evidence from which it appear that there was cordial relation ship between them. 87 SC No.69/2009
Conclusion;
76. Death of deceased Smt. B.V. Mamatha on 20.2.2008 in the afternoon in the house of accused No.1 and 2 by hanging is not disputed. The allegations of the prosecution that accused persons took dowry before the marriage in the form of gold ornaments and after the marriage they demanded dowry of Rs. 3 Lakhs and they were ill-treating Pw-1 for the said purpose, such ill- treatment for dowry led the deceased to commit suicide which was within 7 years from the date of her marriage. This is a case of unfortunate death of a young lady aged about 22-23 years. Though the prosecution has led its evidence to prove the case against accused persons, the accused persons also led evidence to disprove the case of the prosecution. From the evidence, it appears that at the time of marriage the bride was given 250 grams of gold and bridegroom was given some gold ornaments. But, the evidence is not sufficient to prove that such gold 88 SC No.69/2009 ornaments were given on the demand of the accused persons. The accused persons succeeded in creating some doubt as to whether it was given as dowry or it was given by parents of the bride as per the tradition or as gift. As far as ill-treatment for dowry of Rs. 3 lakhs after the marriage is concerned, it appears that the accused No.1. himself has bought gold ornaments to his wife, he was looking after her well, he has performed flowering ceremony, naming ceremony of the child, birthday of the child etc., Further, he has bought washing machine etc., to his house. There is evidence to show that he and accused No.2 were treating the parents of the deceased well. Though it is the evidence that the accused persons were demanding money for the purpose of purchase of a house to the sister of accused No.1, it is brought out in the evidence that sister of accused No.1 had already constructed a new house in Bengaluru. Therefore, the evidence regarding cruelty for demand of dowry after 89 SC No.69/2009 marriage, is also not sufficient. As far as deceased committing suicide is concerned, there is evidence to show that on the earlier occasion also the deceased had attempted to commit suicide and the accused persons were able to raise suspicion regarding the mental ability of the deceased to withstand some hiccups or problems in the family life. The accused also able to create suspicion as to whether the deceased committed suicide due to the differences in the family of her parents regarding love affair and insistence of Pw-2 to marry Dw- 5 Sneha. There is no sufficient evidence to show that the accused persons either abated the commission of suicide by deceased Mamatha or there was ill-treatment to her immediately prior to her death by suicide. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the incidents that took place on 19.2.2008 and 20.2.2008, prior to the death of deceased Mamatha.
90 SC No.69/2009
77. Considering the over all evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the defense, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was demand of dowry and taking of dowry by accused persons prior to the marriage, there was demand of dowry of Rs. 3 Lakhs after the marriage, the accused persons treated the deceased with cruelty to meet their demand of dowry, such cruelty led her to commit suicide by hanging on 20.2.2008, beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer Point No's.1 to 5 in the 'Negative'.
78. Point No.6 :- For the reasons discussed above, accused No.1, 3 and 4 are entitled to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304(B), 306 r/w Sec. 34 I.P.C. & Sections 3, 4 & 6 of D.P. Act,1961 r/w Sec.34 I.P.C. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
91 SC No.69/2009
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the accused No.1 Vishnuverma, accused No.3 Smt. Yashodamma and accused No.4 D.Rangaswamy for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304(B), 306 r/w Sec. 34 I.P.C. & Sections 3, 4 & 6 of D.P.Act,1961 r/w Sec.34 I.P.C.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused No.1, 3 and 4 are stand cancelled.
The seized properties marked at MOs.1 to 5 being worthless are hereby ordered to be destroyed after the completion of the appeal period.
Accused No.1,3 and 4 shall comply with Sec. 437A of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her and after corrections, printout taken and then pronounced and signed by me in the open Court, on this the 29th day of July, 2022) (Yashawanth Kumar) LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
92 SC No.69/2009ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined for the prosecution side:
P.W.1 Venkataswamy P.W.2 Madhu P.W.3 Krishnegowda P.W.4 Suma P.W.5 Paramesh P.W.6 Srinivas P.W.7 Ravi P.W.8 Naveenkumar P.W.9 Boraiah,Thahasildar P.W.10 Dr. Sumangala P.W.11 B.V.Srinivas P.W.12 M.H. Babu Rajendraprasad P.W.13 Ashwathnarayana Shetty P.W.14 Smt.B.R.Andal
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution side:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1.
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of P.W.13
Ex.P.2 Invitation Card.
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.14
Exs.P.3 to 10 Eight marriage photos
Exs.P.11 to 13 Three photos of dead-body
Exs.P.14 to 21 Eight receipts
Ex.P.22 Death-note
Ex.P.23 Inquest Mahazar
Ex.P.23(a) Signature of P.W.8.
Ex.P.23(b) Signatures of P.W.9
Ex.P.24 Post morte report
93 SC No.69/2009
Ex.P.24(a) Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.25 Report by P.W.11
Ex.P.25(a) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.25(b) Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P.26 Acknowledgement
Ex.P.26(a) Signature of P.W.12
Ex.P.27 Original F.I.R.
Ex.P.27(a) Signature of P.W.13
Ex.P.28 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.28(a) Signature of P.W.13.
Ex.P.29 Will
Ex.P.30 Case in G&WC No.184/2009
Ex.P.31
to 38 Photos.
List of material objects marked for the prosecution side:
MO.1 & 2 Pieces of Duppata(Vale) MO.3 Chudidar Top MO.4 Chudidar Pant M.O.5 Under garment
List of witnesses examined for the defence side:
DW.1 Vishnuvarma.
DW.2 M.V.Sudeendrakumar.
DW.3 Raghu B.H.
DW.4 D.Rangaswamy
DW.5 Sneha V.R.
DW.6 Y.S.Yogesh
94 SC No.69/2009
List of documents exhibited for the defence side:
Exs.D.1 & 2 2 Prescriptions of Bharathi hospital Ex.D.3 Lab Report of Bharathi hospital Ex.D.4 A Report from Bharathi hospital Ex.D.5 Scan Report from Bharathi hospital Exs.D.6 & 7 2 Prescriptions of Lakshmi Nursing home.
Ex.D.8 1 Sonographi Report of Lakshmi
Nursing Home
Ex.D.9 1 Prescription of Lakshmi
Nursing Home
Ex.D.10 Sonography Report from Lakshmi
Nursing Home
Ex.D.11 Lab Report of Prescription.
Ex.D.12. Sonography Report of Lakshmi Nursing Home Ex.D.13 Ante Natal card of Lakshmi Nursing Home Ex.D.14 Advance payment Receipt of Lakshmi Nursing Home Exs.D.15 to 21 7 Prescriptions of Lakshmi Nursing Home Ex.D.22 Discharge Card of Lakshmi Nursing Home Ex.D.23 Immunization schedule of Manjula Children clinic.
Ex.D.24 1 Prescription of Rajeev Hopsital. Exs.D.25 to 32 8 Prescriptions from Srinivasa Hospital.
Ex.D.33 1 Receipt from Bheema Jewellers. Ex.D.34 1 Receipt of Dhavanam Jewellers.
Exs.D.35 & 36 2 Receipts from Bheema
Jewellers.
95 SC No.69/2009
Ex.D.37 Service particulars of
Sri. B.N. Venkataswamy.
Exs.D.38 to 166 129 photos of accused, deceased
B.V.Mamatha, their child and
family members.
Ex.D-167 C.D., relating to said photos.
List of material objects marked for defence side:
Nil LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.96 SC No.69/2009
(Orders pronounced in the open court. Operative portion of the same is extracted as under) ORD ER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit the accused No.1 Vishnuverma, accused No.3 Smt. Yashodamma and accused No.4 D.Rangaswamy for the offences punishable under Sections 498-
A, 304(B), 306 r/w Sec. 34 I.P.C. & Sections 3, 4 & 6 of D.P.Act,1961 r/w Sec.34 I.P.C. 97 SC No.69/2009 The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused No.1, 3 and 4 are stand cancelled. The seized properties marked at MOs.1 to 5 being worthless are hereby ordered to be destroyed after the completion of the appeal period. Accused No.1,3 and 4 shall comply with Sec. 437A of Cr.P.C. LI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. 98 SC No.69/2009