Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Uma @ Umadevi on 28 February, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXI Addl. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-62)
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2018
PRESENT :- SRI.Sunildutt Annappa Chikkorde, M.A.,LL.M.
LXI Addl. City Civil & sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
SESSIONS CASE NO.412/2012
Complainant: The State of Karnataka
By Jnanabharathi Police Station,
Bengaluru
Reptd. by Public Prosecutor,
City Civil Court Complex,
Bangalore.
.V/s.
Accused 1. Uma @ Umadevi,
W/o Narayanappa,
Aged 40 years,
R/at No.335, 3rd cross,
Balagangadharanagara, Kengunte,
Bengaluru.
(Accused No.1)
(By Sri.S.G.P. Advocate)
1. Date of occurrence of 14.07.2011
offence
2. Date of report of offence 14.07.2011
3. Arrest of the accused 20.07.2011
4. Commencement of trial 21.11.2012
5. Closing of trial 13.01.2015
6. Name of the complainant Smt.Sakamma
2 SC No.412/2012
7. First information report 14.7.2011 at 13.30
reached to the Magistrate hours
8. Offences complained of U/S.306 of IPC
9. Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 is
acquitted as per the
judgment.
JUDGMENT
The charge sheet submitted by the PSI, Janabharathi Police Station, against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the complainant Smt.Sakamma, the deceased Poornima and the accused are the neighbours and resident of Kengunte Janatha Colony, 3rd Cross and on 13.7.2001 the accused quarreled with the complainant and deceased Poornima and abused them in filthy language and told that deceased Poornima is having illicit relationship with others and due that deceased Poornima namely the daughter of the complainant had committed suicide on 14.7.2011 at about 10.00 a.m., by writing death note at her residence bearing D/o.249/11, 3rd Cross, 3rd main, Janatha Colony, Kengunte, Bangalore. In this regard the complainant had lodged complaint before the respondent police and on the basis of which the respondent police have registered a case in their P.S. Cr. No.242/11 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
3. On receipt of the charge sheet, Learned 9th ACMM, Bengaluru took cognizance of the offences cited therein, the 3 SC No.412/2012 prosecution papers were furnished to the accused persons. Since the offences u/s 306 of IPC are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the committal court committed the case to Hon'ble Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, who in turn registered the case in S.C. No. 412/2012 and pleased to make over the case to this court for disposal in accordance with law.
4. Then in this case, the accused was enlarged on bail. After hearing the learned Public prosecutor for the state and learned counsel for the accused u/s 227 Cr.P.C. as there are sufficient materials to frame charge against the accused, the charge for the offences punishable u/s 306 of IPC was read over and explained to accused, she pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined in all eighteen witness as PWs.1 to 18 out of 24 witnesses cited in the charge sheet and through them got marked Ex.ps.1 to Ex.P.36 and M.O.1 and 2. Despite sufficient opportunity given to the police concerned to secure the presence of remaining witnesses. So the prayer of the prosecution to reissue NBW to those witnesses was rejected and evidence of the prosecution was taken as closed.
6. After closure of prosecution evidence, I examined the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. So as to enable the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against her, wherein the accused denied the incriminating evidence appearing against her and did not choose to lead any evidence on her behalf.
4 SC No.412/20127. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned defence Counsel for the accused and perused the materials placed on record.
8. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 13.7.2001 you accused quarreled with the complainant and deceased Poornima and abused them in filthy language and told that deceased Poornima is having illicit relationship with others and due that deceased Poornima namely the daughter of the complainant had committed suicide on 14.7.2011 at about 10.00 a.m., by writing death note at her residence bearing D/o.249/11, 3rd Cross, 3rd main, Janatha Colony, Kengunte, Bangalore and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable u/s. 306 of IPC?
2. What order?
9. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following :
REASONS
10. Point No.1:- Out of eighteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW.1-Smt.Sakama is the complainant and the mother of the deceased Poornima, PW-2 Smt.Padmamma is the neighbour of the complainant and also circumstantial witness prior to the alleged incident, PW-3 Srinivas is the husband of the deceased Poornima and son-in-law of PW-1 as well as panch witness for 5 SC No.412/2012 seizer mahazar at Ex.P.3, death notice at Ex.P.2 as well as MO-1 dairy, MO-2 Saree, PW-4 Nagaraj is the neighbour residing quite opposite to the house of PW-1 and panch witness for seizer mahazar Ex.P.3, PW-5 Smt.Uma is a panch witness for inquest mahazar Ex.P.4, PW-6 Smt.Anasuya is also the neighbour of PW-1 and circumstantial witness, PW-7 Smt.Parvathamma is also neighbour of PW-1 and circumstancial witness, PW-8 Prasanna Kumar is a panch witness for inquest mahazar at Ex.P.4, PW-9 Anjali is the neighbour of PW-1 and also circumstantial witness, PW-10 Smt.Lakshmamma, PW-12 Smt.Puttathayamma, PW-13 Smt.Kamalamma, PW-14 Kalegowda are the circumstantial witnesses in respect of the alleged incident, PW-11 Dr.Dilip Kumar.K.B is Asst. Professor at Victoria Hospital who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Poornima and issued Post Mortem Report as per Ex.P.9 and also given opinion in respect of MO-2, PW-15 Smt.Jinetha.M Incharge Scientific Officer of FSL Bangalore, Hand Writing Expert who examined the disputed writings in the note book marked by him at Q-1 and A-2 through scientific method and disputed writings marked by him as S-1 to S-2 pertaining to Q-1 and Q-2 and admitted writings of the deceased Poornima which was sent for his opinion for the purpose of its comparison with disputed death note at Ex.P.2 marked by him as S-1 to S-9 and disputed writings of the dairy which is already marked as MO-1 and the relevant pages marked as S-1 to S-9 by him marked as Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.22 and issued his opinion as per Ex.P.31 and reasons for Ex.P.31 marked as Ex.P.32 and the Model seal of FSL is marked as Ex.P.33, PW-16 M.Masilamani HC 1811 who carried two sealed cover on 3.8.2011 as per the order of 6 SC No.412/2012 his superior CW-24 and handed over to FSL and after handing over he received acknowledgement and produced the same before CW- 24, PW-17 Smt.Harini WPC No.3046 deposed about arresting and producing the accused Uma before her Superior CW-24 at 12.30 p.m., and PW-18 Sri Dharmegowda PSI of Janabaharathi P.S., received the complaint lodged by the complainant on 14.7.2011 at about 1.00 p.m., and on the basis of the said complaint he registered the case in Cr. No.242/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 306 R/w. Section 34 of IPC against the accused and her husband and sent FIR to the jurisdictional Court, Ex.P.1 complaint, FIR as per Ex.P.34 and after his due investigation he filed charge sheet before the court against only one accused.
11. On perusal of the evidence of PW-1 to 18 it reveals that except PWs-1 to 5, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16 to 18 remaining witnesses i.e., PW-7, 10, 12, 13, 14 have been turned hostile to the prosecution in respect of Ex.P.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13. It is pertinent to note that out of the supporting prosecution witnesses the evidence of PW-5, PW-8 have remained unchallenged by the counsel for the accused.
12. Keeping inview of the above circumstances if the entire evidence of the above supporting witnesses for the prosecution are taken into consideration in the light of the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused it reveals that defence of the accused with regard to the alleged incident in question is that of total denial of the case of the prosecution on the ground that accused is innocent lady and she has not committed any offence as alleged against her and accused is in no way concerned to the 7 SC No.412/2012 alleged offence and she has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. It is also pertinent to note that in this case after recorded statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein accused denied the case of the prosecution in toto and she has not chosen to lead her defence evidence either oral or documentary. Hence, inview of these circumstances having regard to the nature of the offence alleged against the accused it is to be seen whether the evidence of above supporting prosecution witnesses would bring home the guilt of the accused in the light of the above materials available on record beyond all reasonable doubt.
13. At the very out set it is pertinent to note that factum of the alleged death of the daughter of the complainant i.e., Poornima is concerned is not in dispute but as could be seen from the entire suggestions made during the cross-examination of PW-1 and other material circumstantial witnesses in their respective cross- examination it is clear that in the light of the above defence of the accused, accused disputed her criminal liability with regard to the allegations made against her that she was responsible for alleged abatement to deceased Poornima so as to take such drastic steps to commit suicide. Hence, Keeping inview of these material aspect so for as in the light of above undisputed fact with regard to alleged death of Poornima in this case is concerned PW-1 Dr.Dilip Kumar.K.B who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Poornima and issued Post Mortem Report as per Ex.P.9 and also identified the signature at Ex.P.9(a). It is also pertinent to note that before considering the evidence of PW-11 in this case it is 8 SC No.412/2012 also clear from the evidence of PW-5 and 8 who are the panchas for the inquest mahazar, on perusal of the evidence of PW-5 and 8 they have categorically in their respective examination in chief deposed by admitting their respective signatures on the inquest mahazar at Ex.P.4(a) and Ex.P.4(b) and also issuance of notice by the police as per Ex.P.5 for the purpose of conducting inquest mahazar at Ex.P.5 have also admitted their respective signatures at Ex.P.5(A) and Ex.P5(b). It also reveals from their evidence that they have deposed by supporting to the prosecution that police have conducted inquest mahazar over the dead body of the deceased Poornima in their respective presence having regard to the condition of the dead body and the evidence of PW-5 and 8 remained unchallenged by the accused. Hence, considering the said undisputed aspect in the light of evidence of PW-5 and 8 remained unchallenged by the accused. Hence, considering the said undisputed aspect in the light of evidence of PW5 and 8 which are to be viewed from the above circumstances that the factum of alleged death of Poornima is not in dispute.
14. So far as the evidence of PW-11 is taken into consideration he deposed in his examination in chief that on 30.10.2009 he written statement working in Victoria Hospital as Assistant Professor on 14.7.2011 on the basis of the request made by the PSI Jananabharathi P.S., he conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Poornima from 5.30 p.m., to 6.15 p.m., and he took measurement of the dead body, it was measuring 50 cm in length and he found rigorous marks over the dead body and also one ligature measuring 30 X 3 9 SC No.412/2012 cm, below the neck 5 cm, below the right ear 4 cm and 2 cm below from the left ear ligature mark and the said ligature was found in dry condition. He also deposed in his examination in chief that after dissection of the dead body he found remaining organs were found intact and there was a semi digested food and also bones in the neck are found intact condition. He also found that the ligature mark was anti-mortem and saree of the deceased was produced before him and on its examination he was of the opinion that deceased might have committed suicide by using the saree for hanging and he was of the opinion that the death of the deceased was caused due to asphyxia, accordingly he issued post mortem report as per Ex.P.9. he also deposed that saree used for hanging measuring 540 cms in its length and its colour was orange and yellow colour and the ligature mark was tallying with the saree around the neck of the deceased and the said saree was having strength to bear the weight of the dead body of the deceased and thereafter he handed over the said saree to the police after its packing and seal and he has issued separate reasons in respect of the said saree which was used for his examination and opinion as per Ex.P.9(b) and he identified the said saree produced before the court as MO-2. In his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused elicited that since the rigor mortis appeared in the dead body death might have taken place between six to twelve hours prior to conducting post mortem examination. It is also elicited that there is possibility of likelihood of causing thyroid and high yard facture of neck bones in such cases which depends upon the age of the person and also height of the place from where person is hanging. But he denied the suggestions that there was 10 SC No.412/2012 possibility of causing death of a person and thereafter being hanged and also denied that he is deposing falsely in this case at the instance of the police.
15. Before considering the relevancy of the evidence of PW-11 in the light of the evidence of material witness for the prosecution i.e., complainant and other circumstantial witnesses in this case for the appreciation of their evidence with regard to the above disputed aspect it is necessary to consider the evidence of PW-15 Smt.Zinath W/o.Noorullashariff who is also an another expert of handing writing expert so far as the death note produced at Ex.P.2 and as well as a dairy MO-1 which were sent to her examination under Scientific Method and for opinion wherein the questioned writings in the alleged suicide letter which is identified by I.O. as Q- 1 and the same is identified by her Q-1 and Q-2 and this said dairy marked by her as Q-2 and the writings in the said dairy have been identified by her as S1 to S9 and after enlarging the disputed writings marked by her as S1 to S9 as found in Q.1 and Q.2 and also that document is marked at Ex.P.2 and she identified her signature at Ex.P2(b). She also identified writings which are marked as S1 to S9 in MO-1 and its relevant pages marked a sEx.P.14 to Ex.P.22 and her signature at Ex.P14(a) to Ex.P.22(a). She further deposed that she had sent report along with enlarged documents to the concerned I.O. in respect of S1 to S9 and Q1 and Q2 along with her signature and seal which are marked at Ex.P.23 to 30(Q1 andQ2 relevant pages marked at Ex.P.29 and 30, S1 and S2 marked as Ex.P.23 and 24 and signature of PW-15 and Ex.P.24(a) and Ex.P.25 26 in respect of S3 and S5 and her 11 SC No.412/2012 signature is identified and marked as Ex.P.26(a) and so also Ex.P.27 ad 28 in respect of S8 and S9 marked at Ex.P.28(a) including her signature at Ex.P.28(a). Her report is marked at Ex.P.31 and her signature is at Ex.P.31(a) and the reasons for her opinion is produced at Ex.P.32 and the papers which she had subjected for examination along with its report sent to the concerned police officer along with Model seal in a cover, the model seal is marked at Ex.P.33 and signature of PW-15 is marked at Ex.P.33(a).
16. As far as the credibility of the evidence of PW-15 is taken into consideration in the light of her version elicited by the learned counsel for the accused wherein it is elicited that she had not requested the police for supply of more admitted writings of the documents since the documents which were also sent to her were sufficient. She also admitted that in para No.7 of page No.4 that " ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀiåQÛ §gÉ¢lÖAvÀºÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ PÉý®è AiÀiÁPÉÃAzÀgÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀAvÀºÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀjÃPÉÌUÉ ¸ÁPÁUÀĪÀ¶ÖvÀÄÛ". It is also elicited that there will be natural variations in writings of a person. But there cannot be variations in forms. But she admitted that she cannot able to say that which period such natural variations would occur. It is also elicited that if any disability caused to the person naturally there will be difference in writings but in its formation there will be no difference. It is also elicited in her cross-examination on page No.4 which is continued in few lies on page No.5 of para No.8 from last two lines that "vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁj £À£ÀUÉ M¦àUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ ºÀ¸ÁÛPÀëgÀUÀ¼À ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆlÖAzÀÝjAzÀ £ÁªÀÅ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÄzÉæUÀ¼À ¥ÀjÃPÉë ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä 12 SC No.412/2012 E¯ÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÀå¦ÛAiJ°è CzÀÄ §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è £ÀªÀÄä C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄPÉÌ 2£Éà M¦Ã¤AiÀÄ£ï ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄvÉÛêÉAiÀÄÉà JAzÀgÉ E®è". Remaining suggestions with regard to defence of the accused as to denying that any proper procedure was followed for issuing her opinion in respect of the disputed document and a false report has been submitted to the court. She also denied that though both the documents not written by one person, but on the basis of assumption the false report has been issued.
17. So far as the relevancy of the evidence of PW-11 and also the expert opinion in respect of Ex.P.31 is concerned the same will be dwelt with little later while considering the credibility of the evidence of complainant and other circumstantial witnesses who have supported to the case of the prosecution in this case. So far as the credibility of the deceased of PW-11 and 15 with regard to relevancy of their evidence as far as the circumstantial evidence appearing with regard to the disputed aspect of death of deceased Poornima is concerned.
18. Now going to the evidence of PW-1 Smt.Sakamma being the complainant and mother of the deceased Poornima in her examination-in-chief she deposed that she was residing along with her deceased daughter namely Poornima and her two children and that the husband of the deceased at Ambedkar Colony in Kegunte for the last 20 years. She further deposed that her said daughter was 26 years old, her marriage was performed about seven years back and her daughter was having two children and her expired 13 SC No.412/2012 about one and a half years back. She further deposed that she knows the accused who is her neighbour and her name is Uma. About one year four months back on 14th day at about 10.30 a.m., she received phone call at Anganawadi school informing her that accused making galata with her daughter and therefore she should come near the house immediately. Since her school children was to leave there was a delay in leaving the school and to reach her house as she come by walk. She also deposed that before she reached her house her aughter died by hanging to the iron rod with the help of saree and leaving death note and she found dead body was hanging to the rod thereafter she shouted meanwhile after hearing her cry neighbouring persons gathered in that place and the dead body on her daughter was pulled down by untying the rope and thereafter she was shifted to Wackhard hospital wherein she was informed that her daughter expired and thereafter the dead body was shifted to Victoria Hospital and after post mortem examination dead body was given to her custody and thereafter she shifted the same to her native placed to Chennpatna wherein the cremation was conducted. She also deposed that accused was frequently making galata in the last two years by abusing her and also her daughter on a suspicion that her daughter was having illicit relationship with others since her husband came back to house in the evening after he leaves house in the morning. She also deposed that every day accused was quarrelling with her in respect of keeping waste infront of her house and prior to the death the accused had torn nighty of her daughter and abused her and in this regard her daughter had called her over phone and she was also suspecting character of her daughter and as well as blaming 14 SC No.412/2012 her that she being a widow and her son-in-law is working as a mason at Maddur. She also deposed that about five years back accused picked up quarrel with her by suspecting her chastity and by imagining that she is having illicit relationship with the husband of the accused and by that time she made attempt to commit suicide. She also deposed that in the alleged incident she filed complaint before Janabharathi Police Station as per Ex.P.1 and she identified her signature at Ex.P.1(a) and further deposed that she had given death note written by her daughter and she identified death note marked at Ex.P.2. She also deposed that after lodging complaint police came to her house and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P.3 and seized death note and one dairy and she identified her signature at Ex.P.3(a) and she further identified material objects produced before the court by the prosecution i.e., one coffee colour dairy and saree which are respectively marked as MO-1 and 2 and she given further statement before the police. She has also deposed that accused was abusing her daughter Poornima by always suspecting her character by assuming that she had illicit relationship with other male persons and thereby she underwent dipression and committed suicide. She also deposed in chief on 21.1.2013 by reiterating her earlier evidence in respect of Ex.P.2 and MO-1 that its contents which were already marked were written by her daughter.
19. PW-2 Smt.Padmamma deposed in her examination in chief that for the last 20 years she is residing at Malathalli, Bangalore and she knows CW-1 and her deceased daughter Poornima and she was residing at Malathhalli by the side of the 15 SC No.412/2012 house of Sakamma and Poornima was residing that Sakamma. About 9 years back marriage of Poornima was performed with one Srinivas and they are having two children, husband of deceased Poornima by one Srinivas was working as teacher at Maddur. She also deposed that in the house of Sakamma she was residing along with her daughter and Son-in-law of said Sakamma and daily making up and down to Maddur and accused before the court by name Uma was residing as a neighbourer to the complainant Sakamma. She also deposed that on 14.7.2011 Poornima committed suicide in the house of Sakamma with the help of tying the saree There was quarrel between the accused and Poornima in respect of water tap as Poornima used to fill water for her neighbouring boy and thereby assuming that Poornima had relationship with the said boy and this fact came to her knowing from Poornima as she had been to the house of Sakamma. She also deposed that she is working as Sweeper in Bangalore University and she used to console Poornima as she was going over to the house of Sakamma on every Saturday being a holiday and whenever she had been in their house, accused used to abuse Poornima in filthy language by presuming that Poornima had illicit relationship with neighbouring boy. Whenever the accused saw Poornima and therefore for this reason without tolerating the same Poornima committed suicide and she also identified the accused before the court as the same lady by name Uma.
20. PW-3 Srinivas deposed in his evidence that deceased Poornima is his wife, CW-1 is his mother-in-law and he knows CW- 2 to 15, on 25.5.04 his marriage was performed with Poornima, he 16 SC No.412/2012 is working as teacher for the last 20 years, on 2011 he was working as teacher at Government School at Hulaganahalli. After his marriage he was residing at his mother-in-laws place situated at Janatha Colony, Kegunte, Bangalore along with his wife and mother-in-law. He further deposed that he had two children one mail and one female. He used to travel daily from his mother-in- laws house to school. He further deposed that he knows the accused before the court and the accused always used to question the chastity of his wife and was doubting her character that she had illicit relationship with other male persons. He further deposed that prior to his marriage the accused used to quarrel and the accused is residing next to his mother-in-laws house. The accused used to pick up quarrel regarding water tap and assuming that his wife was having illicit relationship with the tenants. His wife used to informed him about the incident of quarrel to him when he returned back home. He further deposed that his wife had informed him that accused used to give her torture prior to his marriage also and accused has quarreled like this several times when he was had come home. He advised not to quarrel like this as he has come down to stay on Government Holidays and Sundays. The accused used to quarrel with his mother-in-law also. The accused used to tell his mother-in-law that you are deserted by your husband, no body is there to ask you and if she beats there is nobody to rescue. There is a public tap infront of the house. The boy was a tenant used to go out for work and to fill water he used to ask his wife to fill water in a pot. He further deposed likewise his wife used to fill water in a pot for the tenant boy and for this the accused abused as to she was having illicit relationship with that boy, you are 17 SC No.412/2012 prostitute and asked her to die. He further deposed prior to the alleged date of death, the accused picked up quarrel with Poornima regarding water tap and abused as to his wife is having illicit relationship with others and asked my wife to die and for that he consoled his wife. He deposed that when his wife committed suicide he was in school and his mother-in-law called him over phone and informed him. On 14.7.11 his wife committed suicide and he came to Fortis Hospital and saw his wife's dead body. There is a iron rod to the sealing in the house where they are residing and his wife hanged herself with the help of saffron colour saree. His mother in law is working as a Aaya at Anganwadi and she use to go for work at 9.00 a.m., and returned around 4.00 p.m., in the evening to house and hence his mother-in-law had given complaint to police. On the said date around 6.00 to 7.00 p.m., the police conducted mahazar at Ex.P.3 in the house of his mother-in-law in the presence of himself, CW-2, 3 and his mother-in-law. He identified his signature on Ex.P.3 mahazar at Ex.P.3(a). He further deposed that at the time of mahazar his mother-in-law produced saree and death note to the police. He had produced the writing of his wife in a dairy to the police and the police had seized the same. He further identified death note at Ex.P.2, dairy at MO-1 and saree at MO-2. He identified the writings of his wife in the dairy at S1 to S9 and further identified writings on Ex.P.2 as that of his wife's hand writing. He also identified the signature of his wife on Ex.P.2 as he is acquainted with the signature of his wife and his wife's signature on Ex.P.2 is marked as Ex.P.2(a). He deposed that the accused used to quarrel with his wife assuming that she was having illicit 18 SC No.412/2012 relationship with other male persons and asked my wife to die and due to this his wife was under depression and committed suicide.
21. PW-4 Nagaraj deposed in his evidence that since 18 years he is residing at Kegunte and his house is opposite to the house of the accused. He knows CW-1, 3 and 4, on 14.7.2011 at about 6.00 to 7.00 p.m., police had come to the house of Sakamma and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and police had seized saree used to commit suicide, death note and the dairy produced by CW-4 and he signed the said mahazar as Ex.P.2(c). He identified death note at Ex.P.2, dairy and saree are respectively marked at MO-1 and 2. Police conducted mahazar in respect of suicide committed by deceased Poornima and at the time of conducting mahazar, CW-1, 3, 4 and himself were present.
22. PW-5 Smt.Uma deposed in her evidence that she is residing at Kegunte for the last seven years and she knows CW.5 and 7. She deposed that around three years back she had been to Fortis Hospital and there Poornima's dead body was there and police conducted inquest panchanama at Ex.P.4 and obtained her signature at Ex.P.4(a). She deposed that police had given her notice at Ex.P.5 and her signature is at Ex.P.5(a). She further deposed that she does not know who other persons were present there at the time of pnachanama. The evidence of PW-5 is not challenged by the Advocate for the accused.
23. PW-8 Prasanna Kumar deposed in his evidence that he knows CW-1 Sakamma, CW-4 Srinivas and accused Uma. He 19 SC No.412/2012 identified Ex.P.4 inquest panchanama which bears his signature at Ex.P4(b). He deposed that about 3 years back he had been to Fortis Hospital, Nagarbhavi on hearing the news of death of Poornima which police obtained his signature on panchanama, the police showed the dead body of the deceased and verified the dead body in his presence and he came to know the deceased Poornima died by hanging herself in her house and the said Poornima is the wife of CW-4 Srinivas. He further deposed that police had issued notice Ex.P.5 prior to conducting inquest panchamam which bears his signature at Ex.P.5(b).
24. PW-9 Anjali deposed in his deposed that since from the date of her birth she has been residing at Kengunte and she knows CW-1 Sakamma as she is her neighbour and she also know the deceased Poornima who is the only daughter of CW-1 Sakamma and CW-4 Srinivas is the husband of deceased Poornima, both of them were residing in the house of CW-1. She further deposed that CW-1 is working as Helper in "Anganawadi" at Mallathhalli. CW-4 is working as teacher at Maddur and deceased Poornima has two children. She deposed that accused Uma used to quarrel with the deceased Poornima in respect of tap water, she used to tease the deceased that she had illicit relationship with the tenant in the house of CW-1. Deceased had small children, she had to come to get tap water and tenant used to get water to the deceased. About three years back the accused abused the deceased that such persons should not be alive and she should die. On account of that ill-treatment of the accused, the deceased Poornima committed suicide by hanging at about 11.00 a.m., to 12.00 noon. She 20 SC No.412/2012 deposed that she witnessed the galata as she is she is the neighbour of the deceased.
25. PW-12 Puttathayamma deposed in her evidence that since 25 years she is residing at Kegunte. She knows CW-1 Sakamma and her deceased daughter Poornima and she also knows the accused Uma. She deposed that accused Uma and CW-1 are residing in one lane and she is residing in the next lane. She deposed that Poornima is no more, about three years back when she returned back home from work she came to know the Poornima committed suicide by hanging herself and she had been taken to hospital. She further deposed that she does not know for what reason Poornima committed suicide and police have not recorded her statement and turned hostile to the prosecution and denied the suggestions of the learned Public Prosecutor that accused Uma is residing next to the house of the CW-1 since 20 years and she used to quarrel with Sakamma for small things and also quarreled in respect of for leaving water and was harassing her. She further denied that suggestion that the accused used to abuse Poornima in filthy language as to she was having illicit relationship with other male persons and used to defame her. She further denied the suggestion that on 14.7.11 at about 11.30 a.m., when she was near her house, she heard the hue and cry of Sakamma and she went there and saw that Poornima had committed suicide by hanging herself with the help of the saree to the rod of the sealing and then the people who were there untied the saree and pulled her down and shifted Poornina to Nagarabhavi Fortis Hospital. She further denied the suggestion that Poornima was filling the water pot for 21 SC No.412/2012 the tenant and in this regard the accused Uma abused and provoked her to committed suicide by abusing her as to she was having illicit relationship with that tenant and Poornima committed suicide by writing death note. She further denied the suggestion that she had given the statement as per Ex.P.10. She further denied the suggestions that she is deposing falsely as to they are the residents of the same locality and to help the accused Uma she is deposing falsely.
26. PW-6 Smt.Anasuya deposed in her evidence that she has been residing at Janatha Colony Kegunte, Bangalroe for the last 17 years and she knows CW-1 Sakamma and deceased Poornima and her house is situated after three roads from the house of Sakamma and she knows the accused before the court. Poornima was married. CW-4 Srinivas is her husband, having two children and the said Poornima is no more as she had committed suicide and she do not know for what reason she committed suicide and she had not enquired with any body about the cause of committing suicide by Poornima and therefore she do not know the said reason. She also deposed that police have not recorded her statement and the day on which Poornima committed suicide she did not went near her house, hence PW-6 has been treated hostile by the prosecution and learned Public Prosecutor subjected this witness for cross-examination by confronting entire contents of statement made before the police as per Ex.P.6, in toto and she denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely at the instance of the accused who is having acquaintance with her. She only 22 SC No.412/2012 admitted that accused is residing as a neighbour to the deceased Poornima and CW-1.
27. PW-7 Smt.Parvathamma deposed in her evidence that she has been residing at Janatha Colony Kegunte, Bangalore and she knows CW-1 Sakamma and deceased Poornima and as well as accused. Her house is situated after four houses from the house of accused. Poornima was married. CW-4 Srinivas is her husband, having two children and the said Poornima is no more as she had committed suicide and she do not know for what reason she committed suicide and she do not know for what reasons Poornima committed suicide. She also deposed that police have not recorded her statement and she also deposed that on that day morning accused was quarreling with some persons in respect of water and she had not enquired about the same and thereafter she went to the hospital after she returned from work, hence PW-7 has been treated hostile by the prosecution and learned Public Prosecutor subjected this witness for cross-examination by confronting entire contents of statement made before the police as per Ex.P.7, in toto.
28. PW-10 Smt.Lakshmma deposed in her examination in chief that about 3 years back she was residing in a rented house at Kengunte, Bangalore, she knows C.w.1-Sakamma and her daughter Poornima and her house was situated two houses after the house of C.w.1, Poornima has two children and C.w.4-Srinivas is her husband. She further deposed that she knows accused-Uma, about 3 years back Poornima committed suicide by hanging. She further deposed that C.w.1-Sakamma and accused-Uma were quarreling in 23 SC No.412/2012 respect of Tap-water in their street and she saw 1-2 times the accused and Sakamma quarreling with each other. She deposed that she do not know why Poornima committed suicide and stated that police have not recorded my statement, hence PW-10 has been treated hostile by the prosecution and learned Public Prosecutor subjected this witness for cross-examination by confronting entire contents of statement made before the police as per Ex.P.8, in toto and she denied the suggestion that accused used to quarrel with C.w.1 Sakamma for silly reasons and inrespect of getting tap-water. She further denied the suggestion that the accused quarreled with Poornima and was abusing her and insulting her saying that she had illicit relationship with others and with the tenant in their house, by that time she used to pacify the quarrel and console Poornima, on account of that abetment Poornima on 14/07/2011 in between 11 a.m-11.30 a.m. committed suicide by hanging. She further denied that she gave statement to police as per Ex.P.8. She further denied that suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused that the accused and Sakamma were not quarrelling with each other.
29. PW-13 Smt.Kamalamma deposed in her evidence that since 20 years she is residing at Janatha Colony, Kegunte, she knows CW-1 Sakamma, her deceased daughter Poornima and also the accused Uma. She also deposed that accused and CW-1 are residing in the same lane as neighbours and she is residing in the neighbouring lane. Poorniam was married, having two children and now Poornima is no more. She also deposed that about three years back she came to know while she returned to her house after 24 SC No.412/2012 attending her work that Poornima is expired and she do not know for what reason and how Poornima died and police have not recorded her statement, hence she has been treated as hostile. During the cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor to this witness confronted entire contents of Ex.P.11 by suggesting material facts leading to the alleged incident dated 14.7.2011 at about 11.30 a.m., are concerned have been categorically denied by PW-13 in toto and she also denied the suggestions that since she is closed to accused and residing at one place inorder to help her she is deposing falsely before the court.
30. At this stage before considering the credibility of the evidence of above hostile witnesses i.e., PW-6,7,10, 12, 13 and 14 it is necessary to consider the credibility of the evidence of above hostile witnesses for the prosecution i.e., PW-1 to 4 who are being the related material witnesses for the prosecution and also circumstantial witnesses for the alleged incident in the light of the entire evidence of PW-18 is concerned, the evidence of these material witnesses cannot be brushed aside as an interest witnesses, therefore in the light of above defence taken by the accused in this case with regard to the alleged incident in question is concerned and as well as the factum of alleged death and arrest of the accused in this case and so also conducting inquest by PW-18 Investigating Officer as per Ex.P.4 is concerned is not in dispute so seriously as the panchas for the said inquest mahazar and also the evidence of P-17 are remaining unchallenged by the counsel for the accused and therefore keeping inview of all these material circumstances it is necessary to consider the version 25 SC No.412/2012 elicited during the cross-examination of Pw-1 to 4 are concerned and as well as PW-18 is the Investigating Officer in this case.
31. On going through the entire cross-examination of PW-1 by the learned counsel for the accused wherein it is elicited that she is residing in the house at the given address for the last 20 years and prior to that she was residing at Kengute. Prior to her shifted she was not acquainted with the accused and her house was constructed in the side allotted to her by the Government about 10 years back and prior to that she was residing in hut. It is also elicited that her husband expired 4-5 years back. The house wherein she is residing that property stands in her name. It is also elicited that Government had not paid any amount for acquiring ting said site but she had borne the expenses and she has been working as Aaya in Anganawadi which is situated at a distance of about one kilometer from her house and she used to go to her duty every day by walk. Except the said house she is not having any other property and there was no any house or property in the name of her daughter and the children of her elder sister are staying with her and except these persons there are no other persons. It is also elicited that her husband was not doing any work except the coolie work. It is further elicited that her husband was not residing with her as he was residing in another place. While her daughter was small girl her husband had come and by that time quarrel took place between herself and her husband and thereafter her husband went away. It is also elicited that the reasons for the said quarrel between herself and her husband was that her husband was not providing food to her. It is also elicited that she knows the accused 26 SC No.412/2012 for the last twenty years and as long as her husband was with her accused had not quarreled with her and her husband is residing in another place for the last 7 to 8 years while her daughter was a small girl. It is also elicited for the last ten years accused used to quarrel with her and for the last three years also accused was quarrelling more. While the accused quarreled with her for the first time her daughter was about ten years old and the reason for quarrel by the accused was in respect of water, sweeping waste and also for some reasons. It is also elicited the reason for quarrel in respect of water was one boy residing as tenant under the her (complainant) and for him one pot water was filled and given to him and for that reason accused quarreled with her. It is also elicited that prior to letting out she had made enquiry about the antecedent of the said boy and the said boy had come for rent under her for about one year back.
32. It is also elicited that her daughter studied up to PUC and know she had not let out room to any body but there are tenants residing in the neighbouring house on rental basis of the family holders and as well as unmarried persons. It is also elicited that her daughter had filled the pot for the said boy for once. Accused abusing her daughter since the time of she was school going and by that time she had questioned the accused as to why she was abusing her daughter for that the accused told her that it was correct to abuse her and accused abusing her daughter for ever in filthy language.
27 SC No.412/201233. It is also clear from the version of PW-1 elicited in her further cross-examination by the counsel for the accused that her daughter had studied up to PU at Bharathi College at KM Dodi at Maddur and during prosecution her studies for certain period her daughter was staying with her and as well as staying in the house of her maternal uncle who had no children. It is also elicited that her daughter was residing with her for a period of three years and thereafter she went to KM Dodi to the house of her maternal uncle wherein she studied up to 6th Standard and thereafter she shifted to Bangalore while studying at 7th Standard and thereafter her daughter completed her high school studies in the house of her maternal uncle in Kannada Medium and her daughter was knowing writing English to little extent. Her daughter used to stay in her house for some period and as well as she was staying in the house of her maternal uncle. It is also elicited that accused had also quarreled with her daughter after her marriage and also while she was holding her child and there were no friends to her daughter, but there are her relatives near to her house and her daughter used to visit the house of her relatives at Kegunte. It is also elicited that she had left her daughter as she was having financial problems and therefore for the purpose of prosecuting her studies her expenses were born by her father-in-law. Two years prior to her marriage her daughter was attending garment work and thereafter she discontinued it and the salary came to her from garment work used to tender in her hands. It is also elicited that except the said house she is not having any other property and as well as her daughter had also not acquired any property but she denied the suggestion that her daughter sold one house on 29.6.2011 infavour of one 28 SC No.412/2012 Uma Shankar but she admits that she signed to the said sale deed as attesting witness. It is also elicited that she had given amount to her elder sister in order to meet marriage expenses of her son and after the sale of her site she had returned that amount to her after getting her signature. It is also elicited by confronting Certified copy of the sale deed which containing LTM and Photo and as well as her signature on the said document, the said document is marked at Ex.D.1 and the photo of her daughter and also signature of her daughter. Her photo in Ex.D.1 is marked as Ex.D.1(a) and photo of her daughter on Ex.D.1 is marked as Ex.D.1(b). It is also elicited in her further cross-examination at page No.9 on para No.2 that "£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À UÀAqÀ ªÀÄzÀÆÝj£À ºÀwg Û À EgÀĪÀ PɸÀÆÝj£À ªÀiÁZÉÆúÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀª£ À ÀÄ. F ¸ÉÊl£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DPÉAiÀÄ UÀAqÀ£À C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥Àq¢ É zÁݼÉÆà ? E®èªÉÇà ? J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀPÉÌ D ¸ÉÊlÄ CªÀ¼À UÀAqÀ£z À À®è. ¸ÉÊlÄ ªÀiÁjzÀ ¨sÁUÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀªÀjUÉ PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀt vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. ¸ÉÊl£ÀÄß ªÀiÁjzÀ ºÀtzÀ ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä CPÀÌ£À ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ 4 d£À, £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀAaPÉÆAqɪÀÅ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ¥Á°UÉ 4 ®PÀëzÀ 4 ¸Á«gÀ §A¢vÀÄÛ, DzÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄä CPÀÌ £À£U À É ºÀt ¤ÃrzÀ¼ÀÄ, £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ºÀt §A¢gÀ°®è CªÀ½AzÀ ¸ÀĪÀÄä£É ¸À» ºÁQ¹PÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ. D 4 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉ ¸Á® ªÀiÁrzÉÝ£ÀÄ, ¸Àé®à 29 SC No.412/2012 ºÀtzÀ°è ¸Á® wÃj¹zÉ£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Àé®à ºÀtzÀ°è ªÀÄ£É ¸Á® wÃj¹zÉ£ÀÄ."
34. It is also elicited that in her further cross-examination that her son-in-law was teacher in school and except the said work her son-in-law was not doing any other work. After her marriage, her daughter was staying with her in-laws house for a period of six months and thereafter also in her house at Bangalore. Since she was having only one daughter she used to visit her house frequently and there was no dispute between her daughter and her husband. Her son-in-law also used to visit her house often and often particularly once in a week Saturday and Sunday and also there was no dispute between her daughter and her mother in law. Her son-in-law was giving money to her daughter to meet her personal expenses. It is also elicited that at the time of marriage no dowry was given to her son-in-law and as well as there were no dispute while her son-in-law came to her house there were no any dispute. It is also elicited that her daughter had told her husband about the accused and her son-in-law had enquired to the accused as to why accused did so to his wife and thereafter after the said talks accused was kept mum for about a period of one week and thereafter she again picked up quarrel. It is also elicited that after birth of child to her daughter she used to make up and down to the house of her in-laws from her house and 15 days or one month after the birth of said child also her daughter used to come over to her house. It is also elicited that her daughter started residing with her permanently from the time of delivery. Her son-in-law having mobile and he was giving phone call to her daughter twice in a day 30 SC No.412/2012 and her daughter was not talking with any other persons except her husband. But she denied the suggestion that after delivery of the child her daughter had not gone to the house of her in-laws.
35. It is also elicited in her further cross-examination dt.15.3.2014 by the learned counsel for the accused that she being illiterate cannot read and write and she constructed house about 12 years back which comprising one kitchen, one hall and one room and one bathroom and another bathroom. There is a water tap but there is no supply of water, therefore she used to get the water from outside. Her neighbouring persons getting water inside the water tap of their respective houses and they have made request to the Government in this regard and therefore public tap was provided at a distance of 20 feet from her house and there was a Government Bore-well wherein three taps have been provided by connecting supply of water from bore-well. It is also elicited that one boy by name Ravi was a tenant under her for a period of one year prior to the date of death of her daughter and he was a bachelor and the said boy was tenant under her for a period of one and a half years and thereafter he vacated. It is also elicited that she has arranged the money about two lakhs by deriving income from her coolie work and as well as from chit transaction and the said amount was spent by her towards the marriage of her daughter. It is also elicited that she used to go to her Anganwadi work from 9.00 a.m., and returned back to her house at 4.30 p.m., It is also elicited in her further cross-examination on page No.12 at para No.3 that 31 SC No.412/2012 "£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅzÀQÌAvÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ, DgÉÆæ £À£ÀUÉ, CAvÀ ªÀÄÄAqÉ, UÀAqÀ E®è JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ, DgÉÆæ- CAvÀ ªÀÄÄAqÉ, ªÀÄUÀ½UÀÆ UÀAqÀ E®è , CªÀÄä¤UÀÆ UÀAqÀ E®è, UÀAqÀ ©lÖªÀ¼ÀÄ, ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÁrUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀĪÀªÀ£À£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆArzÁÝ¼É JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ DgÉÆæ-J¯ÁèzÀgÀÆ ºÉÆÃV ¸Á¬Ä JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄwÛzÀݼÁ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ¸Áj ¨ÉÊ¢zÁݼÉ."
36. It is also elicited that her daughter had sold one property i.e., site as per Ex.D.1 and the said site was her own site and no share was given to her in the said sale proceeds is categorically denied. It is also elicited she returned back to her house at about 10.30 a.m., from Anganawadi on 13.7.2011. It is also admitted that on the same date at about 3.30 p.m., her daughter had talked with the accused. She also admitted that on 14.7.2011 at about 10.30 a.m., she went to her work and her daughter given phone call to her at about 10.40 a.m., informing her that she should come back to the house as accused was abusing her and by that time she told her that she should stay in the house and thereafter she did not gave phone call to her daughter and thereafter she returned back to her house inorder to ascertain as to what was the matter. It is also elicited that elicited to this incident accused had assaulted her daughter and torn the nighty and by that time also her daughter gave phone call to her requesting her to come back to the house. Accordingly, she returned back to her house. It is also elicited in 32 SC No.412/2012 her further cross-examination on page No.13 and continued on page No.14 also from para No.3 that "£Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ, £ÀªÀÄä ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ M§â ¸ÀÆ̯ïUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ, E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ªÀÄUÀÄ eÉÆðAiÀÄ°è EvÀÄÛ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ©ÃUÀ ºÁQgÀ°®è. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁ¯ï£À°è £ÉÃtĺÁQPÉÆArzÀݼÀÄ. £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÁ¯ï ©Ã¢¬ÄAzÀ PÁt¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è AiÀiÁPÉAzÀgÉ PÁA¥ËAqï EzÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQPÉÆArzÀÝ£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃr £Á£ÀÄ ¨Á¬Ä §rzÀÄPÉÆAqÉ, CPÀÌ- ¥ÀPÀÌzÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉ¢®è. CPÀÌ-¥ÀPÀÌzÀªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ, £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PɼÀUÉ E½¹zÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀPÁðqï D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÁj£À°è ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PɼÀUÉ E½¹zÁUÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¥ÉưøÀgÀÄ §AzÀgÀÄ.
¥ÉưøÀjUÉ AiÀiÁgÉÆà ¥sÆ
É Ã£ï ªÀiÁr «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹zÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ
ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ. £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¨ÁrUÉUÉ EzÀÝ gÀ« J£ÀÄߪÀ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ DUÀ J°èzÁÝ JAzÀgÉ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVgÀ §ºÀÄzÀÄ. ¥ÉưøÀgÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀÆ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ §gÉzÀ aÃn ¢ªÁ£ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É EvÀÄÛ. D aÃn £À£ÀUÉ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¹QÌvÀÄ. D aÃnAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÉưøÀjUÉ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è PÉÆmÉÖ. aÃnAiÀÄ£ÀÄß K£ÀÄ §gÉ¢zÉ JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀjAzÀ N¢¹ £ÉÆÃrzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆlÖgÀÄ JAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è.
¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ°è K£ÀÄ §gÉAiÀįÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÁ JAzÀgÉ, CzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉưøÀgÀÄ N¢ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýzÀAvÉ §gÉzÀgÀÄ. ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄ 33 SC No.412/2012 PÉÆmÁÖUÀ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß DVvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ¤¢ðµÀÖªÁV UÉÆwÛ®è. D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gɹzÉÝãÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ wÃjPÉƼÀÄîªÀ »A¢£À gÁwæ £ÀªÀÄä C½AiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ, ªÀÄgÀÄ¢£À ¨É½UÉÎ ¸ÀÆ̯ïUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀ. DvÀ §¸ïì£À°è ¸ÀÆ̯ïUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, vÀ£Àß DgÉÆæAiÉÆA¢UÉ dUÀ¼À DVzÉ CAvÀ £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉýzÀݼÁ JAzÀgÉ ºÉý®è. ¢.14.07.2011gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß ªÀPÁðqï D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ §AzÀ."
37. It is further elicited in her further cross-examination that her son-in-law got married once again within a year after death of her daughter. Her grand children are residing with her son-in-law and her elder sister daughter by name Padmamma alone is residing with her. It is also clear from the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused about her defence with regard to the alleged incident that there is no nexus between the accused and also the death of her daughter and also that accused never gave any ill-treatment to her daughter, never gave abatement to cause her death and her daughter committed suicide as property which was to be given to her share was not given to her and as well as that herself and her daughter given lot of trouble to the accused and a false compliant has been lodged against the accused, have been categorically denied by PW-1 in toto.
38. Where as the credibility of the evidence of PW-2 is taken into consideration in the light of her version elicited by the accused that for the last eight years she has been working in Janabharathi 34 SC No.412/2012 Hostel and she studied up to 8th Standard and she used to work for six days, house of Sakamma is situated at a distance of 200 feet from her house and accused had not quarreled with her since accused had not talked with her. It is also elicited that she used to go to her duty morning at 8.00 a.m., and returned back to her house at 9.00 p.m., It is also elicited that she used to get the water from bore-well as there was scarcity of water. So also the similar problem was near the house of her aunt and for the said reason there was a situation of quarrel with others for getting tap water and this fact came to her knowledge through her sister Poornima and no body informed this fact to her and she had advised her sister not to go to get water for the above said reason and her sister Poornima was not going to bring the water against her advise. It is also elicited in her further cross-examination on page No.4 at para No.5 that "¥ÀÆtÂðªÀiÁ DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄ, £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ CAd° ºÉýzÀÝjAzÀ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÁݼÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£É §AUÁgÀ¥Àà £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è EzÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹zÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÁ¸ÉÖ¯ï£À°è EzÉÝ. UÉÆvÁÛzÀ ªÉÄïÉ, ºÁ¸ÉÖ¯ï CªÀjUÉ ºÉý, £Á£ÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ §AzÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ, £À£Àß zÉÆqÀØCPÀÌ-vÁAiÀĪÀÄä£À ªÀÄUÀ-²æäªÁ¸À ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹zÀ. ¥ÉưøÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr¢gÁ JAzÀgÉ, «¼Á¸À PÉý, ªÀÄÈvÀ¼ÀÄ K£ÀÄ DUÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ ªÀPÁðqï D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è PÉýzÀgÀÄ. £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ K£ÀÄ PÉý®è. D £ÀAvÀgÀ PÀÆqÀ ¥ÉưøÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀÄ 35 SC No.412/2012 «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr®è. ¥ÉưøÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁUÀzÀ CxÀªÁ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸À» ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÁ JAzÀgÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ CzÀ£ÀÄß N¢®è. PÁUÀzÀz° À è K£ÀÄ EzÉ JAzÀÄ AiÀiÁjUÀÆ PÉý®è.
¥ÀÆtÂðªÀiÁ §gÉzÀ aÃnAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrzÉÃÝ £É. CzÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß aPÀ̪ÀÄä PÉÆnÖzÀ¼Ý ÀÄ."
39. It is also elicited in her further cross-examination that she is the accused causing abatement to commit suicide to her sister while she had been to the house of her aunt one Sunday saying to her sister Poornima that she should die. It also reveals from the remaining suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused relating to the above defence of the accused have been categorically denied by PW-2 in toto.
40. As far as the version of PW-3 elicited by the learned counsel for the accused is taken into consideration wherein it is elicited that after the death of Poornima his children are residing with him at Machehalli and he is not residing with his mother-in- law as she was going to attend her duty at Anganawadi and also there are no other persons to look after his children in the house of his mother-in-law. Therefore he is residing in the house of his mother. It is also elicited that one year prior to the alleged death of his wife accused blaming his wife for the first time that by suspecting her chastity that she had illicit relationship with a tenant and he had not told the tenant to vacate the tenanted premises. He also admitted that he had not lodged any complaint 36 SC No.412/2012 against the accused in respect of such allegation made by her but he had told him that not to talk in that manner and as well as he had told the accused in respect of pelting of stone on the sheet of house of his mother-in-law. It is also elicited that he heard about the accused abusing his wife saying that she should die but he has not answered to the question as to whether he had seen it seeing such a situation. It is also elicited that he used to pacify his wife when situation arise about abuse to his wife by the accused and made attempt to commit suicide. It is also elicited that no attempt was made to shift his family to another tenanted premises along with his wife since his wife was residing with his mother-in-law which is not only convenient to the working place of his mother-in- law but also to the school where he had admitted his children to the nearer school. It is also elicited that on page No.9 at para No.14 from 10th line that "2010gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ JµÀÄÖ¨sÁj UÀ¯ÁmÉ £ÀqɬÄvÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ºÀvÁÛgÀÄ ¨sÁj dUÀ¼À £ÀqÉ¢vÀÄÛ. EµÀÄÖ ¨sÁj UÀ¯ÁmÉAiÀiÁzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É AiÀiÁªÀvÁÛzÀgÀÆ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä «¥ÀjÃvÀzÀ ¤zsÁðgÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀݼÁ JAzÀgÉ E®è."
41. It is also elicited about the admission that there was no personal vengeances between his family and the family of the accused and also prior to his marriage also there was no enmity between accused and his mother-in-law except the alleged abuse by the accused that " ¤ªÀÄUÉ UÀAqÀ E®è, UÀAqÀ ©lÖªÀ¼ÀÄ JAzÀÄ EvÁå¢ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ." Further he has not denied suggestion as to whether 37 SC No.412/2012 any persons lodged complaint against the accused. But he stated that he do not know the same. It is also admitted that prior to the alleged incident on 1.6.2010 Galata had taken place between his wife his mother-in-law and accused in respect of dispute pertains to taking water in respect of which complaint was lodged by his mother-in-law and his wife before Janabharathi Police Station which was ended in compromise between them. It is further elicited in his cross-examination that by the learned counsel for the accused on page No.11 with regard to the material aspect at para No.17 from 9th line that "£À£Àß ºÉAqÀw ºÉ¸Àj£À°è MAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£É EzÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀ «ZÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÀÄÛ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß CvÉÛ-¸ÁPÀªÀÄä £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ zÁ£À¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÉÆnÖzÀݼÀÄ. D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß, £À£Àß CvÉÛUÉ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw PÉÆlÖ¼ÀÄ. ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀ ºÀt ¸Àé®à PÀÆqÀ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀwUÉ §gÀzÉà EzÀÄÝzÀÝjAzÀ, CªÀ¼ÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á ¨ÉøÀwÛzÀݼÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è, CzÉà PÁgÀtPÉÌ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ¼ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
42. It is also clear from the remaining suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused that during further cross- examination of PW-3 with regard to the above defence of the 38 SC No.412/2012 accused is concerned have been categorically denied by PW-3 in toto.
43. As far as the credibility of the evidence of PW-4 is taken into consideration in the light of suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused wherein he has admitted that he was on duty at Janabharathi University from 10.00 a.m., to 5.00 p.m., He came to know about the alleged incident on 14.7.2011 after completing his duty at 5.00 p.m., as public were talking about the death of Poornima. It is also elicited that dead body of Poornima was brought near the house between 5.45 p.m., to 6.00 p.m., It is also elicited in his further cross-examination on page No.3 from 3rd line that "ZÁ.¸Á.1 £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ §gÉ¢nÖgÀĪÀ MAzÀÄ qÉvï £ÉÆÃmï, MAzÀÄ qÉÊjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÈvÀ¼À UÀAqÀ PÉÆlÖ£ÀÄ, ºÁUÀÆ MAzÀÄ £ÉÃvÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ ¹ÃgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EzÀݪÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÉÆà ¥ÉưøÀjUÉ PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. ¥ÉưøÀgÀÄ K£ÀÄ £ÀqɬÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr®è."
44. It also reveals from remaining suggestions made by the counsel for the accused about the denial of conducting mahazar by the police as per Ex.P.2 and recovery of death note, dairy and saree which are marked as MO-1 and 2 are concerned have been categorically denied by him.
39 SC No.412/201245. Where as the version of PW-9 elicited by the learned counsel for the accused is taken into consideration, it reveals that she admitted that she being the daughter of PW-2 Padmamma and being related to CW-1 Sakamma i.e., her grand mother and CW-1 Sakamma are sisters and her house is situated at another street from the house of CW-1. She also admitted that she would not go to the street of CW-1 to get water from water tap and she is residing with her husband in her mothers house. It is also elicited that her matrimonial house is situated at Bangarappa Nagar, Bangalore. It is also elicited that about two years back she saw first quarrel between the deceased and the accused. It is also elicited that on the date of death of decease Poornima in the morning hours there was quarrel with the deceased and um and she do not know the exact time of galata and she had not witnessed the galata on that day and she came to know about the death of Poornima from her cousin brother Srinivasa while she was in her husband house. It also reveals from the remaining suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused pertaining to the above defence of the accused have been categorically denied by PW- 1 in toto.
46. Where as the version of PW-18 elicited by the learned counsel for the accused is taken into consideration, it reveals that complainant gave written complaint and he do not know who wrote it. He also admitted that he has not enquired the in-laws of the deceased and also he has not investigated as to whether there was any dowry harassment to the deceased by her in-laws as there was no allegation in the complaint in that regard. It is also clear from 40 SC No.412/2012 his version elicited by the learned counsel for the accused that he has not denied the suggestion as to whether one month prior to the incident deceased Poornima and her mother sold a house property by the stated that he do not know the same. Further he has not denied the suggestion as to there was dispute arose between the deceased and her mother but he stated that he do not know the same. He further admitted that initially complaint was lodged against the accused Uma Devi as well as her husband Naraynappa. Since, no materials were available against Narayanappa, his name was dropped as it reveals during course of investigation that on the basis of the further statement of the complainant and other materials on record he came to the conclusion that there was no role of Narayanappa in this case. He also admitted that one year prior to this incident complainant and deceased Poornima had given complaint against the accused. It is also elicited about the admission of the fact that he had not asked the assistance of the finger print experts to know the finger prints on death note. It also reveals from the remaining suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused pertaining to the above defence of the accused, have been categorically denied by PW-18.
47. As could be seen from the entire evidence of PW-1 to 3, it reveals that there was a frequent quarrel used to take place between accused who is being neighbour of the complainant much prior to the alleged incident not only in respect of taking water from the public bore-well tap and as well as in respect of suspecting chastity of the deceased Poornima with a tenant who was said to be residing in one room under the complainant about one year or one 41 SC No.412/2012 and a half year period prior to the alleged incident in respect of getting water filled in pot by the said tenant through deceased Poornima on one alleged instance. It is also pertinent to note that from the evidence of PW-1 to 3 that at the time of alleged incident none of these witnesses were present either at the time of alleged incident or prior to that in view of their respective admission elicited in their respective cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused as referred above supra. It is also pertinent to note that all these circumstantial witnesses which are material to the case of the prosecution none of them have deposed before the court that they were present at the relevant point of time while alleged incident had taken place when such being the situation the attending entire circumstances which leads to brought to the notice of PW-1 to 3 after the alleged incident are taken into consideration, it is crystal clear that the alleged death note which said to be left by the deceased at the alleged spot dairy MO-1 and saree at MO-2 which were seized by the I.O. in the presence of panchas to the said mahazar, though the panch witnesses have deposed consistently by supporting to the prosecution however, having regard to the disputed aspect by the accused with regard to the writings at Q-1 and Q-2 wherein the alleged admitted hand writing of the deceased Poornima in dairy which is marked as Q-2 identified as S-1 to S-9 and also the questioned writings at Q-1 in the light of evidence of PW-15 along with her report about the said disputed writings are taken into consideration in the light of material admission by PW-15 that the disputed writings in question were note sent by the I.O. along with admitted signature of the deceased to the finger print experts and this fact is clearly admitted by PW-18 in his 42 SC No.412/2012 cross-examination. When such being the situation the opinion of the handwriting expert inview of Ex.P32 is taken into consideration along with the evidence of PW-1, 3 and 4 it is clear that it would create a doubt about the disputed writing at Ex.Q.1 while comparing to the admitted writings of the deceased at Q.2 marked at S-1 to S-9 so far as MO-1 and as well as the relevant pages at Ex.P.14 to 22 and as well as its enlarged copies by PW-15 at Ex.P.23 to 30 are concerned, there is no basis in order to hold that with regard to doubtful circumstances as to who had seen first dead body of deceased Poornima soon after the alleged incident, alleged death note was found at the alleged spot and in this context the alleged evidence of PW-1 to 3 are assessed objectively it clearly goes to show that their evidence appears to be improbable as there is no cogent proof available on record inorder to hold that the disputed death note produced at MO-1 dairy contains the handwriting of the deceased Poornima and during the course of investigation PW-18 had not requested to the finger print expert while submitting MO-1 Dairy for experts opinion about the opinion in respect of finger print on the said dairy. Therefore, in the absence of non seeking of the opinion by the I.O. with regard to the finger print in respect of MO-1 dairy is a doubtful circumstances. Therefore, it can be infirmed from these circumstances that the evidence of PW-1 to 4, 15 and 18 and as well as evidence of panch witness for Ex.P.2 though supported to the prosecution are not free from doubt inorder to hold that the disputed MO-1 dairy in question contains the writings of the deceased Poornima.
43 SC No.412/201248. It is also pertinent to note that having regard to the evidence of PW-1 and 3 with regard to the disputed aspect regarding dispute between deceased Poornima and PW-1 one month prior to the alleged incident as to the alleged property which was sold by PW-1 to others as per Ex.D.1 is concerned, its sale proceeds, as the share of the deceased was not given to her therefore for this reason this deceased was frustrated prior to the alleged incident and this aspect has been probablized by the learned counsel for the accused by eliciting certain material admissions during the cross-examination of PW-1 to 3 as refereed above supra. Therefore, keeping inview of this aspect also if the evidence of PW-1 and 3 and also PW-2 are taken into consideration in the light of the above defence taken by the accused it is crystal clear that the evidence of these material and circumstantial witnesses with regard to the alleged incident are not free from doubt and also keeping inview of the entire circumstances brought on record in the light of evidence of Pw-1 to 3 it clearly reveals that their evidence subsequent to the alleged incident is based on hear say and also it reveals that the evidence of these witnesses which is based on the circumstance as to accused being the neighbour of the complainant used to pick up quarrel while getting water and as well as throwing waste etc., which appears to be based on silly matters which would naturally happens between neighbours when every such occasions arises between them and such situation or circumstances cannot be considered as motivated one inorder to drag the deceased to put an end to her life by committing suicide. It is also pertinent to note that what was the mental condition of the deceased Poornima on earlier occasion prior to the alleged incident, 44 SC No.412/2012 prosecution has not produced any cogent material before this court except the oral evidence of PW-1 to 3 and the alleged death note at MO-1, if these materials are taken into consideration, in the light of undisputed circumstances so far as death of Poornima and with regard to the alleged recovery of MO-1 is concerned there is no direct nexus connected with the alleged act of the accused. Therefore, considering all these circumstances the evidence of PW-1 to 4 are taken into consideration it is clear that out of these witnesses PW-1 to 3 who are being related witness to the deceased naturally they would deposed to the case of the prosecution, however credibility of their respective version is taken into consideration along with certain material admission elicited during their respective cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused which creates doubt to believe their evidence. Apart from this it is pertinent to note that neighbouring witness of the alleged incident are concerned in this case PW-6, 7, 9, 10, 12 to 14 if their evidence is taken into consideration it is clear that their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution as they have turned hostile so far as their respective statement made before the I.O. at Ex.P.6, Ex.P.7, Ex.P.8, Ex.P.10, Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.13 and these witness who are being independent witnesses have not deposed before this court inorder to corroborate their respective statement made before the I.O. with regard to the alleged incident. Since nothing have been elicited during the respective cross-examination of these hostile witnesses by the learned public prosecutor, inorder to believe their evidence to probablize the case of the prosecution that the alleged overt act of the accused creating liability inorder to bring the circumstances together and linking to each other beyond all 45 SC No.412/2012 reasonable doubt. Therefore, inview of these circumstances the evidence of PW-6, 7, 9, 10, 12 to 14 are not corroborating to each other, but on the contrary they are contradictory to each other. Therefore, from all these circumstances it creates a doubt to believe the case of the prosecution.
49. It is also pertinent to note that as far as the evidence of PW-16 to 18 are taken into consideration along with the evidence of PW-1 to 10 and 12 to 14 in the light of evidence of PW-11 and 15 who are the opinion witnesses with regard to cause of death of the deceased in respect of post mortem report at Ex.P.9 and as well as the opinion with regard to the disputed writings at Q-1 along with admitted writings at Q-2 so far as report at Ex.P.32 in the light of material admission about failure to refer MO-1 to the finger print expert by I.O. PW-18, which creates doubt to believe the case of the prosecution and thereby considering all these circumstances if the entire evidence of PW1- to 18 and the above materials available on record in the light of above undisputed facts of this case by the learned counsel for the accused are taken into consideration in the light of the disputed aspect as to above defence of the accused it is clear that in the light of well establish principle of law that the case where rests solely on the circumstantial evidence, each and every material circumstance should link to each other inorder to bring home the alleged guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and if any doubt arises in the case of the prosecution, it is also well settled principle of law of the criminal jurisprudence that benefit of doubt shall be extended to the accused. Therefore considering all the material circumstances in the light of nature of the offence 46 SC No.412/2012 alleged against the accused and entire facts of this case it is crystal clear that prosecution has failed to bring home the alleged guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that the alleged ac t of the accused is having direct nexus with the alleged death of Poorinim as well as MO-1 and 2. and thereby no other person is responsible other than the accused so as to connect to the alleged overt act of the accused that the alleged death of Poornima has caused due to alleged outcome of abetment by the accused prior and as well as on the alleged date , time and place of the incident. Therefore, it is clear that as doubt arises in the prosecution case accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
50. Point No.2 : Having regard to my above observations and findings on point No.1 in 'negative', extending the benefit of doubt goes to Accused, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) Cr.PC, the Accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Secs.306 of IPC.
The bail bond of accused stand and her surety shall stands cancelled.
The accused is set at liberty.
M.O.Nos.1 and 2 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographs directly on the computer, thereof correct signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of February, 2018).
(S.A.CHIKKORDE) 47 SC No.412/2012 LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION :-
PW.1 : Smt.Sakamma PW .2 : Smt.Padmamma PW.3 : Srinivas PW.4 : Nagaraj PW.5 : Smt.Uma PW.6 : Smt.Anasuya PW.7 : Parvathamma PW.8 : Prasanna Kumar PW.9 : Anjali PW.10 : Smt.Lakshmamma PW.11 : Dr.DilipKumar.K.B PW.12 : Puttathayamma PW.13 : Smt.Kamalamma PW.14 : Kalegowda PW.15 : Smt.Jinath.M PW.16 : M.Masilamani PW.17 : Smt.Harini PW.18 : Darmegowda
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION :-
Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a),(b) Signatures Ex.P.2 Death Note Ex.P.2 Signature Ex.P.3 Mahazar Ex.P.3(a) to (d) Signatures Ex.P.4 Inquest mahazar Ex.P.4(a to c) Signatures Ex.P.5 Inquest Report Ex.P.5(a to c) Signatures Ex.P.6 Statement of PW-6 Ex.P.7 Statement of PW-7 Ex.P.8 Statement of PW-10 48 SC No.412/2012 Ex.P.9 PM Report Ex.P.9(a) Signature Ex.P.10 Statement of PW-12 Ex.P.11 Statement of PW-13 Ex.P.12 Death intimation Ex.P.13 Statement of PW-14 Ex.P.14 to 22 Admitted handwriting on MO1 at S1 to S9 Ex.P.14(a) - 22(a) Signature of PW-15 Ex.P.23 - 30 Questioned Enlarged handwriting at S1 to S9, Q1 & Q2 Ex.P.24(a), 26(a), Signatures of PW-15 28(a), 30(a) Ex.P.31 Report of PW-15 Ex.P31(a), 31(b) Signature of PW-15 Ex.P.31(b) Signature of PW-18 Ex.P.32 Reason of opinion issued by PW-15 Ex.P.33 Model Seal Ex.P.33(a) Signature of PW-15 Ex.P.34 FIR Ex.P.34(a) Signature of PW-18 Ex.P.35 P.F. Ex.P.35(a) Signature of PW-18 Ex.P.36 Report of CW-21 Ex.P.36(a) Signature of PW-18 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION :- M.O.1 - Dairy M.O. 2 - Saree LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS AND MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:- Nil (S.A.CHIKKORDE) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, 49 SC No.412/2012 Bengaluru. 50 SC No.412/2012 28.02.2018 S-PP A-SGP Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order. ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) Cr.PC, the Accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Secs.306 of IPC. The bail bond of accused stand cancelled. The accused is set at liberty. M.O.Nos.1 and 2 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over. LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bangalore City. 51 SC No.412/2012