Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka By vs Dhanraj on 19 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-53), BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this the 8th day of June, 2015
PRESENT:
Smt. Yadav Vanamala Anandrao, B.Com., LL.B (Spl.,)
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
: SESSIONS CASE NO. 574/2010 :
COMPLAINANT : State of Karnataka by:
Rajagopalanagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor)
-V/S-
ACCUSED : Dhanraj,
S/o. Late Appaji,
Aged 30 years,
Residing at No.174, 1st Cross,
KSCB Quarters,
Lakshmidevi Nagar, Laggere,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. Prashanth A.H, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of offence 10.01.2010
2. Date of report of occurrence 13.01.2010
3. Date of arrest of accused 15.01.2010
4. Date of release of accused on Accused is in judicial
bail custody
2 SC No.574/2010
5. Date of commencement of 25.03.2011
Evidence
6. Date of closing of evidence 08.12.2010
7. Name of the complainant Dr. Pradeep
8. Offences complained of Sections 302, 306 of IPC
9. Opinion of the Judge Accused found guilty for
the offence p/u/s 306 of
I.P.C. Accused found not
guilty for the offence
p/u/s/ 302 of I.P.C.
10. Order of sentence As per final order
: JUDGMENT :
Initially, the charge sheet was filed by the Police Inspector of Rajagopalanagar police station against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C., and in view of the direction issued remanding the case in Crl.Appeal No.776/2011, the case is also proceeded with against the accused person for the offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C., also.
2. Brief facts of the case asserted by the prosecution is that the accused - Dhanraj was the husband of deceased Meena, they were married against the wishes of the parents of deceased Meena and were living amicably. Thereafter, the accused started 3 SC No.574/2010 suspecting the fidelity of deceased Meena and used to torture her oftenly both physically and mentally and that on 10.01.2010 at about 8.00 p.m., at House No.174, KSCB Quarters, Lakshmidevi Nagar, Laggere, coming within the jurisdiction of Rajagopalanagar police station, Bangalore City, the accused on suspecting the character of victim, poured kerosene on her and set fire and as a result of which the victim died of burn injuries at Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, on 14.01.2010 at 5.00 a.m., in the early morning and thus the accused committed the murder of deceased by setting her at fire and accordingly at the initial stage since the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C.
3. After filing of the charge sheet by the complainant police before the Learned VII ACMM, Bengaluru City, cognizance of offence was taken by the Learned Magistrate and registered the case in CC No.15879/2010 and thereafter the Learned Magistrate committed the case against the accused to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, after compliance of 4 SC No.574/2010 provisions of sections 207 & 209 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the case is registered in SC No.574/2010 and made over to the Fast Tract Court XVII, Bengaluru City, for disposal. The accused was in judicial custody represented by standing counsel and the Learned Public Prosecutor represented the State. The Learned Predecessor-in- office has considered the records of the case and documents and after hearing the accused and also prosecution at the stage of hearing before charge, considering the materials on record, the charge was framed for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C., and same has been read over and explained to the accused. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried and same has been recorded under section 228(2) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the prosecution has adduced evidence of witnesses in all P.W.1 to P.W.13 and the documents got marked at Exs.P.1 to P.10 and MOs- 1 to 3 are marked. After closure of the evidence for the prosecution side, the statement of accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused denied the incriminating evidence of witnesses deposed against him. He did not choose to adduce any 5 SC No.574/2010 defence evidence on his behalf and thereafter the then Learned Predecessor-in-office has heard the arguments of the Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and the Learned Standing Counsel for the accused and after formulating the points for consideration, the Learned Predecessor-in-office has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C., and hence the matter was challenged by the accused in Crl. Appeal No.776/2011, which was disposed off on 01.08.2014 with a direction to the Trial Court to frame the additional charge under section 306 of I.P.C., and a direction to the prosecution which shall produce all the medical records maintained by Victoria Hospital pertaining to the victim and shall examine the concerned Doctors in support of the medical records and it is left open for this court to record additional evidence, if it so chooses pertaining to the case sheet maintained by Victoria Hospital and the accused has provided right to cross- examine the witnesses and thereafter it is further directed to pass the judgment after hearing putting with time limit. Therefore, after receiving the records in pursuance of the direction issued in Crl. 6 SC No.574/2010 Appeal No.776/2011, the case is taken up further and securing the presence of the accused. The additional charge is framed with reference to the offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C., and same has been read over to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty of the alleged offence and hence the prosecution by placing the reliance on medical records, has got examined 2 Doctors as P.W.14 & P.W.15 as additional witnesses, who were working as Doctors, the then at Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, and the documents got marked further during their evidence are at Exs.P.11 to P.13. Thereafter, on closing the evidence of prosecution side, the additional statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., has been recorded and the incriminating evidence of additional witnesses has been denied by the accused. But he has not adduced any further evidence, hence the case is taken up for arguments.
4. I have heard the arguments of the Learned Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and heard the Learned Standing Counsel for accused. Perused the records.
7 SC No.574/2010
5. Following points are formulated for consideration of this court:
(1) Whether the prosecution has proves that the deceased victim - Meena died of homicidal death or suicidal death?
(2) If it is homicidal death, whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, on 10.01.2010 at about 8.00 p.m., at House No.174, KSCB Quarters, Lakshmidevi Nagar, Laggere, within the jurisdiction of Rajagopalanagar police station, Bengaluru, accused by torturing repeatedly both physically and mentally and suspecting the character of his wife i.e., deceased Smt. Meena, with an intention to commit her murder had doused her with kerosene and set her ablaze and as such, the deceased succumbed to the severe burn injuries on 14.01.2010 and thereby, the accused caused her death and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.?
(3) If it is suicidal death, whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the said date, time and place, the accused by suspecting the fidelity of deceased Smt. Meena and consequently he used to torture the deceased repeatedly both physically and mentally and due to which the deceased doused herself with kerosene and set herself ablaze and as such the deceased Smt. Meena succumbed to severe burn injuries on 14.01.2010 and thereby the accused has abated her to commit suicide and thus committed an offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C.?8 SC No.574/2010
(4) What order?
6. My findings on the above points are:-
POINT NO.1 - Victim Meena died of suicidal
death.
POINT NO.2 - In the Negative.
POINT NO.3 - In the Affirmative.
POINT NO.4 - As per final order,
for the following:
: REASONS :
7. Points No.1 to 3:- This case is taken up for final consideration, after remand, since my Learned Predecessor-in-office has passed the conviction judgment against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C., which was challenged by the accused in Crl.Appeal No.776/2011. In that criminal appeal, the medical records were called for, from the Victoria Hospital pertaining to the deceased Meena i.e., case sheet and MLC records. It is with the specific observation, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has remanded back the matter with direction to this court to frame the additional charge under section 306 of I.P.C. It has also directed the prosecution to produce all the medical records maintained by Victoria Hospital, pertaining to the 9 SC No.574/2010 victim and examine the concerned Doctors in support of the medical records and also directed to this court to record the additional evidence, if it so chooses, pertaining to the case sheet maintained by Victoria Hospital, and to provide the opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses, etc. Therefore, after receiving the entire file of this case, it is proceeded to frame the additional charge. Evidence of 2 Doctors as additional witnesses has been recorded with reference to the charge leveled against the accused for the offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C.
8. Therefore, the evidence on record on behalf of the prosecution is the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.15 and the documents are at Exs.P.1 to P.13 and MOs.1 to 3. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.14 & P.W.15 are the Medical Officers. P.W.3 is a circumstantial witness as is neighbour. The spot mahazar (Ex.P.3) witness is P.W.4. The inquest panch witness is P.W.5 and inquest is at Ex.P.4. P.W.6 & P.W.7 are the sisters of deceased victim Meena. P.W.8 & P.W.9 are the police constables who have assisted the investigating officer. P.W.10 is the ASI, he has recorded the complaint-cum-dying 10 SC No.574/2010 declaration of the deceased. P.W.11 & P.W.13 are the investigating officers who have conducted further investigation. The witnesses after remand deposed as P.W.14 & P.W.15 as the Doctors from Victoria Hospital. Thus stating these witnesses as material witnesses, the prosecution has tried to bring them on record to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Facts and circumstances of this case and direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, etc., are taken into consideration by this court with reference to charges framed against the accused, for the offences punishable under sections 302 as well as 306 of I.P.C., though the investigating officer placed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. By leading evidence of said witnesses and the alleged documents, it has stated about sufficiency of material to go with the case for arguments and to decide the matter, for both the offences. So, first of all, this court has to take up case whether the death caused to deceased Smt. Meena was homicidal or suicidal, since there is no dispute about 11 SC No.574/2010 death of victim was due to severe burn injuries by setting fire on pouring of kerosene.
9. From the evidence on record, the admitted facts are that accused - Dhanraj is the husband of deceased Meena and that their marriage was taken place against the wishes of the parents of deceased Meena. Accused is the brother of mother of the deceased, a close relative. Accused and deceased were residing in a house at Sharifa Nagar, M.S.Palya, Yeshwanthpur, separately and they have 3 female children i.e., Asha of 11 years, Amuda of 8 years and Sathya of 6 years of ages and that Asha was studying in a residential school at Dharmastala, and two other daughters were residing with accused and deceased. About 20 days back, prior to death of Meena, accused, deceased and their said 2 children were residing in a house of slum quarters in Laxminagar i.e., the place of incident. Deceased was working as Sweeper in Veternity Hospital, Yeshwanthpur, and the accused was doing painting work. 12 SC No.574/2010
10. It is relevant to consider the spot mahazar (Ex.P.3) and inquest (Ex.P.5) and post-mortem report (Ex.P.9). The evidence of witnesses P.W.3 Laxmamma happened to be a neighbour to the house of accused, deceased and their children and accused had recently shifted to the house at Laxmidevi Nagar, for last 10 days only. She did not support the prosecution case about the family particulars of accused and deceased. But she has stated that by pouring kerosene and set herself at fire and died during medical treatment and that there was some galata and hence deceased Meena died of burn injuries. On that day on hearing sound of galata, she came to the spot and on that day the accused was also present at the spot. The police have seized one saree, kerosene can and a burnt paper and took her signature at Ex.P.3(a) and she identified MOs.1 to 3 seized by police. She said that she did not know for what reason the deceased set herself ablaze. Thus, she turned hostile partially. She denied suggestion that she gave statement to the police as per Ex.P.4 i.e., "accused was suspecting character of deceased and torturing her and on the date of incident, 13 SC No.574/2010 she heard galata in the house of accused and she went to their house and told them not to quarrel. But accused immediately set ablaze at deceased victim and when (as contended by the prosecution as building of as a story) deceased was shouting / screaming and accused left the house" and that, "this P.W.3, her husband and neighbour Jayamma had set down the fire and phoned the incident to younger brother of deceased by name Kumar on mobile and as he arrived to the spot, they took the victim to the hospital and that the victim died on 14.1.2010". Thus the statement Ex.P.4, which was taken on 14.1.2010 disclose that P.W.3 was the eyewitness. But she turned hostile to the manner in which the incident took place, and not supported the prosecution case that, accused had ill-motive towards deceased, of suspecting her fidelity and was torturing her and committed murder of deceased, by pouring kerosene and setting at fire", etc. Thus, she has not supported in this regard as an eyewitness to the incident. Other witnesses are alleged to be eyewitnesses i.e., husband of P.W.3, and another neighbour Jayamma. But the prosecution has not 14 SC No.574/2010 adduced their evidence to link the fact that the accused was prepared to commit murder of deceased Meena, in the said manner. She (PW.3) deposed about seizure under Ex.P.3, but stated she did not went inside the house and did not know what the police were doing inside the house (place of incident). So, her evidence is relevant to the extent that there was quarrel taken place between accused and deceased Meena and she died of burn injuries. But she has not corroborated the case of prosecution about the murder. It cannot be the clinching and cogent evidence to believe, as direct evidence proving the material fact of alleged murder. She has not supported that she had shown the spot and police have conducted spot mahazar and seized MOs.1 to 3 under Ex.P.3. Though evidence is relevant only seizure of MOs.1 to 3, but it does not support that in which of the place in the incident house they were found.
11. Other witness to Ex.P.3 is P.W.4. Though she identified her signature at Ex.P.3(b), she did not support the prosecution about the mahazar, that it was done in her presence. She said, 15 SC No.574/2010 Ex.P.3(b) was taken by police when she came to the house of deceased and that MOs.1 to 3 were seized under Ex.P.3. During her cross-examination, she disclosed her ignorance about the contents of Ex.P.3. The police told her to sign and she signed on Ex.P.3. So, her evidence also not supporting as one of the link to hold the accused guilt of murder of deceased and to convict the accused for the offence of murder of Meena. It supports only that deceased succumbed to death due to setting ablaze and burn injuries. P.W.3 alleged to be eyewitness at the time of chief-examination, has stated firmly that deceased by pouring herself of kerosene and setting at fire and died on account of burn injuries, which is relevant supporting the accused that it create doubt whether he did commit murder of Meena. The record supports that she herself caught the fire by pouring kerosene and sustained burn injuries. The portion of chief of P.W.3 reads thus:
"CªÀ¼ÀÄ ¹ÃªÉÄJöuÉÚ ¸ÀÄjzÀÄPÉÆöAqÀÄ ¨ÉAQ ºÀaÑPÉÆöAqÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è K£ÉÆà UÀ¯ÁmÉ DUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. DzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥n À ÖzÁÝ¼É JAzÀÄ UÉÆövÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ. D ¢£À, UÀ¯ÁmÉ DUÀÄwÛzÀÝ ±À§Þ PÉý £Á£ÀÄ JzÀÄÝ §AzÉ. D ¢£À, DgÉÆöæ ¸ÀºÀ D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÀÄÝ C°è ¥ÉÇö°Ã¸ÀgÀÄ, MAzÀÄ ¹ÃgÉ, ¹ÃªÉÄJöuÉÚ qÀ§â ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀÄlÄÖºÉÇöÃzÀ ¥ÉÃ¥Àögï£ÀÄß 16 SC No.574/2010 vÉUÉözÀÄPÉÆöÊqÀÄ ºÉÇöÃVzÀÝgÀÄ. DUÀ £À£Àß gÀÄdĪÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÉÇö°Ã¸ÀgÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄöPÉÆöAqÀgÀÄ."
12. P.W.11 is the ASI by name S. Narasimhaiah conducted the part of investigation. P.W.10 took the statement of victim in burns ward of Victoria Hospital at Ex.P.2 and produced before him. He (P.W.11) registered the case in Crime No.16/2010 under section 307 of I.P.C., sent FIR (Ex.P.8) to the jurisdictional Magistrate and copy to higher officer and conducted mahazar (Ex.P.3) and seized MOs-1 to 3. He has identified his signatures at Ex.P.8(a) and Ex.P.3(c). He says that, when he visited no one was there in the house, where the incident was taken place and stated that there was a stove in the kitchen. MOs.1, 2 & 3 were in the hall. It was suggested that the marriage of deceased was opposed by her family members, hence the MOs.1 to 3 were created and false case was registered against the accused and that she herself committed suicide. But P.W.11 denied it. There are material discrepancies that Ex.P.3 reveals that MOs.1 to 3 found in the kitchen, whereas this P.W.11 stated that MOs.1 to 3 were in the hall. He did not tell what were other materials in the kitchen as revealed under Ex.P.3 i.e., 17 SC No.574/2010 stove, plate, cooker, etc. These are omitted during the evidence of P.W.11. It is material omission and fatal to prosecution case. However from his evidence, it is revealed that it is not a natural death. It does not support that accused had committed her murder. But the defence set up by the accused is that it was suicidal case.
13. About inquest (Ex.P.4), the witness P.W.5 Subramanya deposed that he went to the hospital as he came to know the death of Meena due to burn injuries, at that time police took his signature at Ex.P.4(a) and also came to know that accused had committed her murder. He is not an eyewitness. His hearsay evidence has no evidentiary value. No need to have much discussion about inquest (Ex.P.4). It is only links that death was due to burn injuries. During cross-examination, he deposed that he went to the hospital, as one Kumar called him to the hospital and in the hospital, he told this P.W.5 to put his signature Ex.P.4(a). He admits that he was giving evidence as per say of said Kumar (CW.11), who is brother of deceased. Evidence of this material witness is not adduced. It is also fatal to the prosecution case.
18 SC No.574/2010
14. P.W.12, the Medical Officer conducted post-mortem as per Ex.P.9. He noted external and internal injuries and its effect and opined that her death was caused due to toxemia (i.e., blood poisoning), as a result of burns injuries sustained by her. But he did not note the percentage of burn injuries that caused her death.
15. P.W.13, Police Inspector deposed that on receiving death memo, he had submitted second FIR (Ex.P.10) to the jurisdictional Magistrate. He conducted inquest, took witness statements, and arrested the accused, took his alleged voluntary statement, and received post-mortem report, M.O. sent for FSL and filed the charged sheet, as he found the materials sufficient to file the charge sheet against the accused.
16. The Learned Public Prosecutor specifically pressed upon the evidence of P.W.1, 2 & 10 and the complaint-cum-dying declaration (Ex.P.2) as proof of murder and prays to convict the accused under section 302 of I.P.C. Ex.P.2 the complaint-cum-dying declaration is alleged to be recorded by I.O. on getting permission of 19 SC No.574/2010 Casualty Medical Officer (P.W.2), as she has deposed that on 13.01.2010, on requisition of investigating officer (P.W.10) for taking statement, she went to burns ward and examined the deceased Smt. Meena at about 2.30 p.m., and opined that she is fit to give statement and accordingly, the investigating officer (P.W.10) recorded the statement of victim. No doubt it is acceptable argument of the Learned Public Prosecutor that the CMO (P.W.2) is the competent doctor to certify the fitness of the victim to record her statement and the I.O. (P.W.10) was permitted in that regard. But the arguments of defence counsel that other corroborative evidence to be looked into, because of circumstance under which the incident taken place and material witnesses are not supported about her alleged unconsciousness at the time of admitting to the hospital and case sheet Ex.P.12 and MLC register Ex.P.11, and that at the belated stage improvements and influencing the victim, etc., cannot be ruled out. So, it is proceeded to consider other corroborative evidence whether it supports the prosecution case to hold the accused guilty of murder or otherwise, of suicidal. 20 SC No.574/2010
17. The particular incriminating statement is revealed from Ex.P.2 that -
"£À£Àß UÀAqÀ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀ eÉÆövÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀgÉ, CªÀjUÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀlÄÖªÀÅzÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ£Àß ElÄÖPÉÆöAr¢ÝAiÀiÁ DzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀgÉÆöA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À ¥ÀlÄÖ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ. EzÉ «ZÁgÀªÁV AiÀiÁªÁUÀ®Æ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ."
It refers to the alleged motive.
18. About the incident, it is revealed from Ex.P.2 that on that day i.e., on 10.1.2010 when the deceased Smt. Meena at 8.00 p.m., when she gave food to the accused to eat, the accused took out quarrel abusing her and stated that he could not eat the food prepared by her; then she started weeping, at that time the accused by uttering words that he would give to an end to her and brought kerosene from the kitchen and pouring it on her, set ablaze by using the burning paper litting it to fire from the stove; and when she started to shout, the neighbours and relatives came and took her to the hospital, etc., and the relevant portion in this connection reads thus:
21 SC No.574/2010
"¢£ÁAPÀ 10,01.2010 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 8 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CrUÉ ªÀiÁr ¸ÁgÀ£ÀÄß ©¹ ªÀiÁr £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ Hl ºÁQ PÉÆömÉÖ£ÀÄ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀƼɪÀÄÄAqÉ ¤£Àß PÉʬÄAzÀ Hl ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉý ¨ÉÊzÀö£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ C¼ÀÄvÁÛ PÀĽvÀÄPÉÆöArzÉÝ£ÀÄ. CrUÉ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ¹ÃªÉÄJuÉÚAiÀÄ PÁå£À£ÀÄß vÀAzÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ MAzÀÄ UÀw PÁt¸ÀÄwÛ£ÉAzÀÄ ºÉý ªÉÄöÊöªÉÄÃö¯É ¸ÀÄjzÀÄ GjAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝ ¸ËÖªï¤AzÀ ¥ÉÃ¥Àgï£À°è ¨ÉAQ ºÀw¹ Û PÉÆöAqÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ vÉÆönÖzÀÝ ¹ÃögÉAiÀÄ°è ºÀwÛPÉÆöArvÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ PÀÆVPÉÆöAqÉ£ÀÄö. DUÀ CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¨ÉAQöAiÀÄ£ÀÄß Dj¹zÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß 2 PÁ®ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 2 PÉÊUÀö¼ÀÄ, ºÉÇömÉÖ, JzÉ, PÀvÀÄÛ, ªÀÄÄR ¸ÀÄlÄÖ UÁAiÀĪÁAÄÄvÀÄ. CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ, £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß «PÉÆöÖÃjAiÀiÁ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆöAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÉÝÃö£É."
From this it reveals that the investigating officer has recorded about the alleged quarrel and suspecting character of victim and manner in which she was set ablaze by pouring kerosene. But not collected who were those relatives, neighbours who brought her to the hospital. Apart from this, it reveals that she was alert, conscious and able to say that she was brought to the hospital by neighbours and relatives. When such being the case, she ought to have stated in which of the room (hall or kitchen) the incident was happened, and what was the action of accused? Whether he left the place or attended the victim to take her to the hospital and about her brother Kumar (CW.11) and her children. These are materials not spoken 22 SC No.574/2010 to. This suppression creates doubt. So, the argument that the deceased might have been tutored to give such statement leading to offence of murder influenced by her relatives, since there was strained relationship created with family of deceased on account of the marriage of deceased and the accused, etc. It cannot be ruled out. Thus, it cannot be taken as dying declaration as proof of murder committed by the accused. It need corroboration.
19. Whereas P.W.3's statement was that herself and her husband and the brother of deceased by name Kumar brought the victim to the hospital. The medical record i.e., case sheet states that she was alert, oriented at the time of admitting into the hospital. Why she could not able to say the very brother alleged to be brought her to hospital. I.O. has not collected particulars about her children, who were residing with her. Whether they were with her in that house or elsewhere? In that Ex.P.2, there is nothing to the effect that she was unconscious at the spot of incident. When she was able to say that she was brought out by the neighbours and relatives; How her relatives come there? Who told about incident? 23 SC No.574/2010 and what was the time taken to said relative to come to her house, etc., are material facts to be explained. Material facts to be brought on record. So on this count Ex.P.2 cannot be natural pertaining to the fact of murder.
20. Voluntary statement of accused is not material document to take it as incriminating evidence against him. What is transpired from this statement is that in the house where incident was taken place he was living with his 2 children, since 15 days prior to the incident. What about the children? Whether they were at the spot or elsewhere etc., are not stated. It is notable point that why the statements of these children were not taken? There is no explanation. It is at the belated stage Ex.P.2 in the form of complaint was taken, though the case at the initial stage registered it as MLC case and husband and brother of deceased were the informant in the hospital and that, it is incriminating information by her brother Kumar that, because of torture of accused, she tried to commit suicide. But, whether it was duly sent to the police by the hospital? and if sent, why the police have not registered the case 24 SC No.574/2010 under section 306 of I.P.C.? These are also material facts and they are not explained. It creates the doubt about the prosecution case to believe beyond reasonable doubt about alleged murder so as to convict the accused. The alleged dying declaration is coming up only after 3 days from the date of incident. Why her statement was not taken on the date of incident and admitting to the hospital, as it is recorded in the case sheet as she was alert, oriented and conscious. No acceptable and justifiable explanation in that regard. So, dying declaration (Ex.P.2) does not come to the aid to hold that she died of homicidal death and to hold that accused was committed her murder, etc., and to believe it beyond reasonable doubt.
21. Mahazar (Ex.P.3) was conducted only on 13.01.2010, though the incident was on 10.01.2010. Place was shown by Laxmamma (P.W.3). The material objects are MO.1- burnt saree, MO.2- burnt paper, MO.3- kerosene can, only. As per Ex.P.3, the incriminating materials alleged to be were therein the kitchen room. They were not seized. They are pump-stove, cooker thereupon containing sambar (¸ÁgÀÄ) and a plate nearby, containing "Mudde & 25 SC No.574/2010 Sambar". MO.3 was containing half liter kerosene, was about 3 feet away from the "stove" and a half burnt newspaper (MO.2) and burnt saree (MO.1) were found and that vessels scattered around in the kitchen and there was kerosene smell in the kitchen. These were (as per Ex.P.3) in the kitchen room. But why the said pump-stove, cooker, plate, did not seized? This is material omission in collecting the incriminating evidence. It dislocates the material link to the incident as per story built up that, at the time of giving food and the accused refused and abused her and was intended to commit murder, he poured the kerosene. Thus, this omission being material it creates doubt about alleged intension of accused to commit murder and he set fire at the victim in the alleged manner. It does not aid the prosecution case against accused, of committing of murder of victim.
22. It is important to note that Ex.P.2 discloses that accused brought kerosene from the kitchen and poured upon her. If such being the case, she was not in the kitchen room. If it was in the kitchen, she ought to have stated that set ablaze at her in the 26 SC No.574/2010 kitchen only. But she had stated that the accused did bring burning paper from the kitchen. It is vague on record about the exact place, whether it was in the kitchen or in the hall. P.W.11, I.O. stated MOs.1 to 3 were in the hall. Thus, the exact place of incident is not clear. These are material discrepancies and fatal to the prosecution case to hold the accused guilty of murder. Thus, all these are creating suspicion that the accused has set ablaze at the deceased, with an intention to commit her murder and it lead to the offence of murder.
23. Now coming to evidence of relatives of deceased. It is on record that the family of deceased had strained relationship with accused and deceased Meena. Only one sister of victim P.W.6 is examined. No doubt she has supported the prosecution case about the torture of accused by suspecting fidelity of victim. The neighbour P.W.3 by stating that victim died of suicidal death by pouring herself the kerosene and setting at fire. But not stated that accused ablazed on victim Meena. What she PW.6 said in the chief- examination that -
27 SC No.574/2010
"10-1-2010gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è UÀAqÀ ºÉAqÀöw £ÀqÀÄªÉ dUÀ¼À DVzÉ CAvÀ w½¬ÄvÀÄ. £À£Àß vÀAV ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀgÀ eÉÆövÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀgÉ CªÀ¼À ªÉÄÃö¯É ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr DgÉÆöæ CªÀ¼À eÉÆövÉ dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ. £ÀAvÀgÀ dUÀ¼ÀªÁzÀ ¢£ÀªÉà £À£Àß vÀAVAiÀÄ£ÀÄß D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄöPÉÆöAqÀÄ ºÉÇöÃVzÁÝgÉ CAvÀ w½¬ÄvÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¥üÉÆöÃ£ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ «µÀAiÀÄ w½¬ÄvÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ «PÉÆöÖÃjAiÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ ºÉÇöÃVzÉÝ. C°è £À£Àß vÀAVAiÀÄ£ÀÄß D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ. C°èUÉ ºÉÇöÃV £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAVAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ CªÀ¼ÀÄ vÀ£Àß UÀAqÀ vÀ£Àß ªÉÄÃö¯É ¹ÃªÉÄJöuÉÚ ºÁQ ¨ÉAQ ºÀagÑ ÀÄvÁÛ£É CAvÀ ºÉýözÀ¼ÀÄ. £Á®ÄÌ ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAV eÉÆövÉ D¸Àvà ÉæAiÀÄ°èzÉÝ.ö"
That means, the deceased was conscious and able to give statement on the same day i.e., on 10.1.2010. She (PW.6) went to the hospital and was with victim for 4 days. She said that her brothers and sisters came to the hospital to see the victim. But not stated about her brother and her friend who alleged to be brought the victim to the hospital. But these material witnesses i.e., the brother of deceased (CW.11) and his friend Kumar (CW.5) are not examined. It is material omission. They are important witnesses alleged to be attended and soon after the incident; the victim was taken to the hospital. Even reasonable opportunity was given in that regard to adduce the evidence for material witnesses, but the 28 SC No.574/2010 prosecution has failed to adduce the evidence of other material witnesses and it is fatal to its case to hold that the death was homicidal death.
24. The other official witnesses are PW.8 & PW.9. HC by name Nagaraju (PW.8) has deposed with reference to the reporting about tracing of accused on 14.1.2010, as per the order of higher officer (IO), as he went to Rajagopalanagar along with CW.16 and as per credible information received and traced out the accused at Yeshwanthpur Railway Station and brought him on that day at 8.40 p.m. and his report is at Ex.P.6 and his signature is at Ex.P.8(a). PW.9 is the PC by name Suresh, has deposed about his assistance to I.O., that as per direction, he took the dead body to Victoria Hospital for post-mortem and thereafter the dead body was handed over to PW.6 (CW.8) and he has reported in this regard as per Ex.P.7 and his signature is at Ex.P.7(a). Thus, the evidence of these witnesses are pertaining to the securing of accused and handing over of dead body for post-mortem to the hospital authorities and after 29 SC No.574/2010 completion of autopsy, handing over of dead body to the relatives. Therefore, much discussion is not necessary.
25. The medical evidence of P.W.14 & P.W.15 and the documents referred by them, of Victoria Hospital revealing initial stage of affairs at the time of her admission to the hospital, are important materials to be considered. These are suppressed by the prosecution as I.O. has not collected these materials. Though the prosecution referred the evidence of P.W.5 & P.W.11 in connection with the alleged torture and pertaining to litting fire incident by the accused with intention to commit her murder. But, the evidence of P.W.14 & P.W.15 is material, which does not come to the aid of the prosecution as the MLC register of Victoria Hospital reveals that at 10.15 a.m., on 10.1.2010, the husband of deceased i.e., the accused admitted to the hospital. It is specifically spoken to by Dr. Rajesh (P.W.14), the House surgeon at Victoria Hospital, who was working the then and he has specifically stated that the injured was admitted by her husband stating that in order to commit suicide, she set herself at fire and hence she was injured. In this connection, he 30 SC No.574/2010 referred the important document that the accident register of Victoria Hospital at Ex.P.11, the attested copy of register. PW.15 is the Doctor who worked in Victoria Hospital during the incident period and on 10.1.2010, he was in emergency ward as Medical Officer: at abut 10.15 p.m., accused brought the victim to the hospital in unconscious condition with the history of burnt injuries and suicidal case and husband of deceased i.e., accused gave such history of the injured and he recorded it and took signature of accused and LTM of deceased on Ex.P.11. He has referred xerox attested copy i.e., Ex.P.11, has identified signature of accused at Column No.9 of the said register at Ex.P.11(b), by identifying his signature at Ex.P.11(a). Even there is LTM of the patient taken on Ex.P.11 at Column No.3. History even by the husband i.e., accused, is also no doubt in the said register i.e., the alleged history of suicidal, at about 8.00 p.m., on 10.1.2010, at her residence and noted the injuries. Apart from this, he has identified the accused through V.C., stating that he was the person had brought the 31 SC No.574/2010 injured to the hospital. But to this material witness, there was no cross-examination.
26. P.W.15 has stated that he has referred the injured to the concerned ward. At that time, PW.14 was in-charge of the ward and in the burns ward. PW.14 examined the injured and taken the history of patient through her brother i.e., CW.11 (Kumar), who had narrated that the injured had tried to commit suicide as there was quarrel taken up by her husband at 9.00 p.m., and thereby she got herself set at fire and injured. His statement was recorded in the concerned case sheet (Ex.P.12), of the deceased, wherein it reveals that at 10.40 p.m., the injured was shifted to the burns ward and PW.14 recorded the history, which is relevant to be considered and it is about the specific statement given by her brother Kumar (CW.11) at the time of admitting her in the ward. The case sheet is at Ex.P.12 and the history noted thereunder revealed at Page No.2 of Ex.P.12, which is marked at Ex.P.13. This witness P.W.14 identified his signature for having recorded the history given by CW.11 i.e., at Ex.P.13(a). He has also identified the signature of 32 SC No.574/2010 CW.11, which is at Ex.P.13(b). The relevant portion, therefore, reproduced hereunder:
"Patient is a married woman, aged 25 years, conscious, alert and oriented. Informant : Kumar (patient's brother).
Patient comes c- a/h/o burns, c- suicidal intention following a quarrel with her husband on 10.1.2010 at around 9.00 p.m., in their house in Lakshmidevi Nagar.
The above statement has been read to me and is true to the best of my knowledge."
During cross-examination, nothing has brought on record to disbelieve his version in connection with recording of statement given by CW.11. The evidence is with reference to burn injuries and they were due to attempt of committing suicide by the deceased. There is no any reference that it was caused by the accused and tried to commit her murder, etc., which is during initial undisputed point of time. It is not supporting the case of the prosecution that her death was homicidal death and that it was caused by the accused by setting ablaze at the deceased. Thus, at the initial stage itself, at the time of her admitting into the hospital, being natural 33 SC No.574/2010 and relevant evidence brought on by referring the said case sheet and accident register, which are revealing that there was no any criminal act of the accused causing burn injuries to the deceased with an intention to commit her murder. Thus, these materials are not supporting the case of the prosecution, to bring home the guilt of the accused to convict him under section 302 of I.P.C. But these are material evidence, which supports that it is suicidal death, as the evidence on record as discussed above specifically Exs.P.11 to P.13 and non-cross-examination of material witnesses and evidence of sister of deceased, are evidencing about the torture of the accused suspecting her fidelity and it is caused her to get itself to give an end to her life. It is sufficient to believe the prosecution case that the accused has abated the deceased to commit suicide. The undisputed medical records Exs.P.11 & P.13 disclosed her suicidal death. They are coming up during undisputed period and at the initial stage and they proved the fact that deceased attempted to cause herself to death i.e., suicide. The records and the very version of PW.6, sister of deceased evidencing that accused was 34 SC No.574/2010 suspecting the character of victim and abusing her. Which is proof of both mental and physical torture and committing of suicide was due to such torture. It is nothing but abatement by the accused. Therefore, it is suicidal death caused by the accused.
27. Now, it is the accused to disprove the case made out against him in connection with the suicidal death and he was not cause for it. But, with very conduct of accused itself, in not attending the victim during the treatment is apparent avoidance of accused. The medical record (Ex.P.11) reveals that he had admitted the victim for treatment. But thereafter on shifting her to the ward for treatment. The recording history (Ex.P.13), by the doctor in the case sheet is about the suicidal intension following the quarrel of the accused on 10.1.2010, at about 9.00 p.m., in their house i.e., place of incident. There is no explanation and materials brought on record, why he was absconded all these days, till his arrest. His such conduct itself supports the prosecution, because he has abated by torturing and quarreled with her at the residence, on the said date between 8.30 p.m., and 9.00 p.m., and it was followed her to 35 SC No.574/2010 commit suicide by pouring the kerosene and setting herself at fire and hence the said material objects were recovered from the kitchen, but was not from the hall as contended by I.O. PW.11 who had spoken to that MOs.1 to 3 were in the hall. The prosecution has not able to prove the dying declaration (Ex.P.2) coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.2 & 10, to believe that the death of deceased was homicidal death and that it was caused by accused. The evidence after remand, of the doctors PWs.14 & 15 though they have not supported the death of deceased that it was of homicidal death. But it is supporting the case of suicidal death and proved that, because of abatement i.e., incident of quarrel suspecting fidelity of the deceased, she attempted to commit suicide. But subsequently died of suicidal death.
28. Therefore, the accused is liable to be convicted under section 306 of I.P.C. Whereas, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt in connection with the offence of murder punishable under section 302 of I.P.C., and hence he is entitled for acquittal for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. Thus, in view of the 36 SC No.574/2010 facts and circumstances as discussed above, the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused had abated by torturing the deceased Meena, suspecting her fidelity and consequent to the same, the deceased herself to pour the kerosene and set herself ablaze and succumbed to severe burn injuries on 14.1.2010. In this connection, the material placed by the prosecution as discussed above in detail are sufficient to believe its case to convict the accused under section 306 of I.P.C. Thus the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused in this connection beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C., and liable to be convicted for the said offence. Therefore, Point No.1 is hereby answered that the deceased - victim Meena died of suicidal death, but not homicidal death, Point No.2 is answered in the 'Negative' and Point No.3 is answered in the 'Affirmative'.
29. Point No.4:- In view of the above discussion and conclusion arrived at, this court is hereby proceeded to pass the following:
37 SC No.574/2010
ORDER The accused- Dhanraj is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C., and hence the accused is hereby convicted under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C.
Whereas the accused- Dhanraj is not found guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C., and hence the accused is hereby acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of June, 2015) (Yadav Vanamala Anandrao) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-53), Bengaluru.
9.6.2015 ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard the Learned standing counsel for the accused and also the accused and the Learned Public Prosecutor, on sentence. The Learned standing counsel for the accused has submitted that the police have not noted the injuries 38 SC No.574/2010 caused to the accused, as the accused was tried to rescue the victim from the said incident of fire and at that time his right hand was burnt and he has tried to rescue her. Even these facts are not brought to the notice of the court by the police and also the doctors and that the accused and sister of deceased took her to the hospital and he was also attended the victim till his arrest by the police and he never absconded and he was arrested in the hospital. But falsely built-up the case of his arrest at Yeshwanthpur Railway Station to create false case against him to attract the said criminal proceedings and that he has been in judicial custody and suffered mental agony. He has no any remarks during these period of custody and that he has three children residing with younger brother of the accused, who is now suffering from paralytic stroke and he is unable to work. Because of this, first daughter of accused is doing coolie work and left the school. Other two daughters are small and teenage and that three daughters of accused need the care and protection of their father as they were deprived of since from his arrest. The sister of the accused, is doing coolie work and 39 SC No.574/2010 looking after the children of the accused and also the paralytic attacked brother and leading hard life and that the responsibility of the accused as father is to look after his female children at these teenage. He is not financial sound and poor person and that he is in judicial custody since last near about 5½ years and hence it is prayed to show the leniency in awarding the sentence.
2. Per contra, the Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused with cogent evidence beyond all reasonable doubt in connection with the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC and it is an heinous offence and deterrent and maximum punishment is prayed to be imposed and that the accused is not entitled any leniency.
3. Having heard on sentence as referred above, it is duly considered regarding the family of the accused that three daughters who are now teenaged and they need parental care and protection in these days. It is considered about the poverty of the family of the accused and dependency of the brother, now suffering from 40 SC No.574/2010 paralytic attack and the sister who is doing coolie work, looking after the children of the accused and also the brother who is now suffering from the stroke. For the welfare of the said teenaged female children, care and protection of the accused as their father is necessary and it is one of the grounds to show leniency. With reference to his attempt to rescue the deceased and taking her to the hospital and those factors are not brought on record by the I.O. are also considerable point. At earliest point of time, these aspects are not being put to the witnesses and that, the materials on record are considered on the available materials, it is proceeded to pass the conviction judgment for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC. They do not come to his aid at this stage. There is no any bad remarks brought on record by the Jail Authority or the prosecution, against the accused during his custodial period. The learned counsel for the accused has stated that he has suffered mentally and to treat the period of judicial custody as punishment imposed and leniency be extended to the accused. However, considering his poverty and the present condition of his family 41 SC No.574/2010 consisting of teenaged daughters and having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case leniency is extended. Since the guilt of the accused proved by the prosecution. It is punishable under section 306 of IPC., and the maximum punishment prescribed is up to 10 years. Under these facts and circumstances, it is considered as just and proper to award the imprisonment for 5 years, 4 months with fine of Rs.12,000/- for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC, and out of such fine amount, Rs.3,000/- each shall be paid to the daughters of the accused i.e., Asha, Amuda and Sathya as compensation, as they have lost their mother. The JC period is ordered to be set off. Accordingly, it is hereby proceeded to pass the following:
O R D E R Acting under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 5 years, 4 months and also liable for fine amount of Rs.12,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC.
MOs.1 to 3 being worthless, are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.42 SC No.574/2010
Out of fine amount on payment, an amount of Rs.3,000/- each shall be paid to the 3 daughters of accused by name Asha, Amuda and Sathya, as compensation.
The accused being in judicial custody since from 15.1.2010, is given set off.
Copy of this judgment, is ordered to be supplied to the accused, with free of cost.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of June, 2015) (Yadav Vanamala Anandrao) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-53), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Dr. Pradeepkumar
P.W.2 Dr. Rashmi
P.W.3 Smt. Lakshmamma
P.W.4 Smt. Pushpa
P.W.5 Subramanya @ Subbu
P.W.6 Smt. Gowramma
P.W.7 Smt. Mangala
P.W.8 G.P.Nagaraju
P.W.9 Suresh
P.W.10 N.N. Chandrashekaraiah
P.W.11 S. Narasimhaiah
P.W.12 Dr. K.V. Sathish
P.W.13 M.S. Poornachandra Thejaswi
P.W.14 Dr. Rajesh
P.W.15 Dr. M. Santhosh
43 SC No.574/2010
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Medical Certificate.
Ex.P.1(a) Signature.
Ex.P.1(b) Signature.
Ex.P.2 Dying declaration.
Ex.P.2(a) Signature.
Ex.P.2(b) Signature.
Ex.P.2(c) Signature.
Ex.P.2(d) Signature.
Ex.P.2(e) Signature.
Ex.P.3 Mahazar.
Ex.P.3(a) Signature.
Ex.P.3(b) Signature.
Ex.P.3(c) Signature.
Ex.P.4 Statement.
Ex.P.5 Mahazar.
Ex.P.5(a) Signature.
Ex.P.5(b) Signature.
Ex.P.6 Report.
Ex.P.6(a) Signature.
Ex.P.7 Report.
Ex.P.7(a) Signature.
Ex.P.8 First Information Report.
Ex.P.8(a) Signature.
Ex.P.9 Post-mortem report.
Ex.P.9(a) Signature.
Ex.P.9(b) Signature.
Ex.P.10 First Information Report.
Ex.P.10(a) Signature.
Ex.P.11 Accident register extract.
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of P.W.15.
Ex.P.11(b) Signature of accused.
Ex.P.12 Case sheet.
Ex.P.13 Relevant portion of P.W.14.
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.14.
Ex.P.13(b) Signature of witness.
44 SC No.574/2010
3. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS
EXHIBITED FOR ACCUSED:
- NIL -
4. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS PRODUCED AND GOT
MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
M.O.1 Burnt saree.
M.O.2 Burnt paper.
M.O.3 Burnt kerosene can.
(Yadav Vanamala Anandrao)
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(CCH-53), Bengaluru.
45 SC No.574/2010
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court
(vide separately)
ORDER
The accused- Dhanraj is found guilty for
the offence punishable under section 306 of
I.P.C., and hence the accused is hereby
convicted under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C.
Whereas the accused- Dhanraj is not found guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C., and hence the accused is hereby acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C.
The judgment is deferred for hearing on the sentence for the offence under section 306 of I.P.C.
(Yadav Vanamala Anandrao) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-53), Bengaluru.
46 SC No.574/2010O R D E R Acting under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 5 years, 4 months and also liable for fine amount of Rs.12,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC.
MOs.1 to 3 being worthless, are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
Out of fine amount on payment, an amount of Rs.3,000/- each shall be paid to the 3 daughters of accused by name Asha, Amuda and Sathya, as compensation.
The accused is in judicial custody since from 15.1.2010 is given set off.
Copy of this judgment, is ordered to be supplied to the accused, with free of cost.
(Yadav Vanamala Anandrao) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-53), Bengaluru.
47 SC No.574/2010