Karnataka High Court
The State By Beluru vs Sri Prakash on 18 February, 2022
Bench: K.Somashekar, P.N.Desai
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.577/2016
BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY BELURU
POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-573 115.
...
APPELLANT
(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP)
AND:
1. SRI. PRAKASH
S/O. CHANNEGOWDA
AGED 37 YEARS
LAB TECHNICIAN
SANENAHALLI VILLAGE
BELURU TALUK-573 115.
2. SRI. CHANNEGOWDA
SON OF HUCHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
SANENAHALLI VILLAGE
BELURU TALUK-573 115.
3. SMT. YASHODAMMA
CHANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
SANENAHALLI VILLAGE
2
BELURU TALUK-573 115.
4. SMT. SHUBA
WIFE OF JAGADEESHA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
BHETTADA MANE
KIMARA VILLAGE
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU
DISTRICT-577 132.
5. SRI. MANJEGOWDA
SON OF LAKSHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
UDUSE VILLAGE
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577 132.
...
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE.E., ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5)
-------
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C BY THE STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 16.10.2015
PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., HASSAN
IN S.C.NO.33/2010 THEREBY ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A,
304B, 306 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3,4 AND 6 OF D.P.ACT BY
ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER
ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, P.N.DESAI J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal lays challenge to the judgment of acquittal passed by learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar in S.C.No.177/2011 dated 28th September 3 2015, whereunder accused Nos.1 to 5 are acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 304B and 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC' for short).
2. The factual matrix of the case of prosecution is that PW.1 Bhadregowda is the father of deceased Pavithra. The accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased Pavithra. The marriage of accused No.1 took place with Pavithra on 02.12.2007 in Church Hall, Mudigere. It is further alleged that at the time of marriage, the accused has demanded dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- in cash and 150 gms of gold. Thereafter, the complainant Bhadregowda i.e. PW.1 agreed to pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and golden ornaments worth 150gms at the time of marriage. Accordingly, they paid Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque and another Rs.2,00,000/- in cash.
3. It is the further case of prosecution that after marriage, accused No.1 and the deceased led happy martial life for three months. There afterwards, accused 4 No.1 i.e. husband of the deceased, accused No.2 who is the father of accused No.1, accused No.3 who is the mother of accused No.1, accused No.4 who is the sister of accused No.1 and accused No.5 is the relative of accused No.1, started to torture to the deceased Pavithra demanding her to pay further dowry, a motorbike and gold worth 50 gms.
4. In this regard, there was several panchayaths held between the parties. In the pachayath, the panchyatdars advised the accused No.1 to lead happy married life but accused have not yielded to their request. Thereafter, the deceased Pavithra filed a petition seeking divorce and petition for maintenance and also criminal case for dowry harassment against accused No.1. It is further alleged that the accused persons were attending the Court for both the cases. At that time, the accused persons used to abuse and insult her.
5. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 06.10.2009, there was an inquiry of the said case at the Trial Court, at that time, the accused No.1 and other 5 accused persons abused the deceased Pavithra to cause mental cruelty. Thereafter, the deceased returned the house with a grieve mood. On 07.10.2009, the deceased Pavithra was at home and PW.1- Bhadregowda i.e. father of the deceased Pavithra gone outside for his personal work. When he returned to home around 6.00 p.m., his wife was weeping and on enquiry, she told that the deceased Pavithra has locked main door of the house from inside and when herself and her grand daughter came outside from the house, but her daughter Pavithra is not opening the door even after calling her for several times. Then, PW.1 -Bhadregowda break open the lock of main door. It is found that his daughter Pavithra had committed suicide by hanging herself by stiffening with a saree. The said saree was cut and the body of the deceased Pavithra was taken out and found that she is no more.
6. It is also alleged that there was a death note in the handwriting of the deceased Pavithra stating that the accused Nos.1 to 5 are responsible for her death. In this regard, PW.1- the said Bhadregowda informed the 6 Belur Police about his daughter's death and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1 before the Police Sub Inspector, Belur. The said complaint at Ex.P1 was registered in Crime No.218/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC. Thereafterwards, the Deputy Commissioner of Police who took over investigation, visited the spot and conducted spot panchanama in the presence of panchas. There afterwards, the dead body of the said Pavithra was sent to hospital for post mortem. The requisition was sent to Tahasildar to conduct inquest panchanama. Accordingly, the Tahasildar conducted the inquest panchanama and at the time of inquest panchanama, a death note was found which is marked as Ex.P4 was handed over to the Tahasildar. There afterwards, the investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses and seized the death note and same was sent to forensic science laboratory for examination by handwriting expert. He also drew place of offence panchanama as per Ex-P2, conducted place of panchanama where the deceased committed suicide, seized 5 material objects such as M.O.1 saree, M.O.2 top, 7 M.O.3 chudidhar pant, M.O.4 black colored bra and M.O.5 panty at the time of the mahazar. There afterwards, the post mortem of the said deceased Pavithra was conducted by the doctor. The report of the post mortem is at Ex.P25. He also collected the cheques which are stated to have been given by accused No.2, recorded the statement of bank officers. After receiving the report from forensic science laboratory and opinion of the doctor, he has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences stated above.
7. Learned Judicial Magistrate after complying the provisions of sections 207 and 208 of Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') committed the case to the Sessions Court under section 209 Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides has framed the charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304B, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3,4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The accused pleaded not guilty.
8
8. On behalf of the prosecution, 36 witnesses were examined as PWs-1 to 36 and got marked 44 documents as Ex-P1 to P.44. Thereafter, statement of the accused as required under section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused totally denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, accused No.1 - Prakash has given defense evidence got examined himself as DW.1 and got marked 14 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D14. Prosecution got identified 5 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.5. After hearing the arguments, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offences stated supra which is under challenge in this appeal by the State.
9. We have heard Smt. K.P. Yashoda, learned HCGP for appellant-State and Sri. Suyog Herele.E, learned counsel for respondents.
10. The learned HCGP has argued that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to law, facts of the 9 case and evidence on record. It is further argued by the learned HCGP that the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the judgment and order of acquittal for the charged offences are erroneous and improper. It is argued by the learned HCGP that the Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of PW.1 complainant who is also the father of deceased Pavithra and also PW.2 who is the mother of deceased Pavithra though both of them have spoken about the demand and acceptance of the dowry and physical and mental cruelty meted out by the accused. Learned HCGP agreed that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of PWs.3,4,6 and 7 being the sister, brother-in-law and brother of the deceased who have spoken about the ill-treatment meted out by the accused to the deceased. Learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of PWs.12, 14 and
15. The inquest panchanama conducted by Taluk Magistrate was also not properly appreciated. It is evident that Ex.P4 death note seized by the Tahasildar has not properly appreciated. The prosecution has 10 produced the receipt of jewellery shop from where the jewels have been purchased which were given as dowry to the accused No.1. Without considering all these aspects, the conclusion given by the learned Sessions Judge has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.
11. Learned HCGP further argued that the death of the deceased took place within seven years of marriage under the suspicious circumstances that itself creates doubt. With these main arguments, learned HCGP prays to set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, and to convict the accused for the charges leveled against them and impose punishment as per law.
12. Against this, learned counsel Sri. Suyog E Herale for the respondents/accused argued that the learned Sessions Judge has considered all the evidences properly and has come to the right conclusion. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge leveled against the accused and has rightly given a benefit of doubt and acquitted them. Learned counsel further argued that the 11 deceased Pavithra hardly lived with accused No.1 and infact they were residing separately from other accused at Mangaluru. Learned counsel further argued that the deceased Pavithra had suicidal tendency and she was suffering from mental disorder which was not disclosed to the accused family. Learned counsel also stated that once the deceased Pavithra tried to commit suicide by consuming 18 pills and she was admitted to Hospital at Mangaluru which is admitted by her mother. He further stated that since the deceased Pavithra has not lived with other accused persons or with accused No.1 and soon before death, the question of conviction under Section 306 of IPC would not arise as she was not at all residing at her matrimonial home at the time of committing suicide.
13. Learned counsel for respondents further argued that the deceased during her life time had given a complaint in this regard in the year 2008 alleging that the accused have committed physical cruelty and threatened her that they will commit her murder by pouring kerosene. The said complaint was registered and 12 infact C.C. number was also given in the said case. The very same 5 accused in this appeal are one and the same in that case also and the nature of allegations is also same. Subsequently that case resulted in acquittal of all these accused for the charges leveled against them under Section 498(A) and Sections 3,4 and 6 of DP Act. In the present case, the complaint is filed by the father of the deceased Pavithra making same allegations and only difference is the complaint is made subsequent to death of the deceased Pavithra.
14. Learned counsel argued that the offence under Section 306 and 304B of IPC have nothing to do with the subsequent offence which arise out of the same charges once made against them though these sections were not there earlier, as the deceased alive. After her death, now on the same set of facts same complaint and case cannot be made in view of Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kolla Veera Raghav Rao vs. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao and 13 Anr reported in AIR 2011 SC 6411 and mainly relied on para Nos.5,6 and 7 of the said judgment.
15. Learned counsel further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no evidence regarding what had happened in the Court on 06.10.2009 and what words exactly the accused has stated is not forthcoming. Even for the sake of argument, the accused have stated something to the deceased that does not constitute the ingredient of instigation. For commissioning of offence mens rea which is very much absent in the present case. Simply a word uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea and it cannot be treated as mens rea. In fit of anger and emotion some words are said, it cannot be said as instigate or abetment or incitement or urging any person to take drastic step. In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar versus 1 AIR 2011 SC 641 14 State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 3712 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC and also the offence stated under Section 306 r/w Section 107 of IPC wherein there was also a death note and how to appreciate the suicide note.
16. Learned counsel also relied upon another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Netai Dutta versus State of W.B. reported in (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 6592 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the appreciation of evidence in a case involving offences under Sections 306 and 107 of IPC, wherein there was a suicidal note. It is held that death note will have not examined mechanically. If there was no reference of any act or incidence whereby the accused is alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased, then the said death note is of no use.
17. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umakant and 2 (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 659 15 Another Versus State of Chattisgarh reported in (2014) 7 Supreme Court Cases 4053 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court elaborated the proof of appreciation of evidence in the case involving Sections 304-B, 302, 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and also argued that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. If the evidence of prosecution, two views are possible the view which is favourable to the accused will have to be accepted. On para No.27 which reads as under:
"27. The burden of proof in criminal law is beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and it is also rule of justice in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. After considering the evidence and the judgments of the Courts below, we are of the considered opinion that the evidence available on record and the dying declaration does not inspire confidence in the mind of this Court to make it the basis for the conviction of the appellants. Apart from this, the High Court basing on the same dying declaration, ought not to have convicted the appellants 3 (2014) 7 Supreme Court Cases 405 16 under Section 302 IPC, when they were acquitted under Section 304-B and 498-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the High Court."
18. Learned counsel also relied on another decision of learned Single Judge of this Court respected in 2017 SCC online KAR 5275 in the case of Yogananda and others Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. by Rajgopalnagar Police4 wherein there was a case against accused filed by the deceased under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, and under section 498 -A of IPC. The accused were tried and they were convicted and an appeal was preferred by them. In the meanwhile, the said complainant died after committing suicide. Again, the charge sheet was filed for the offences committed under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 R/W 34 OF IPC and Sections 3,4 and 6 of D.P.Act. The learned Single Judge of this Court after considering the nature of the case and the charges framed in both the cases come to conclusion that once the accused were tried for the same or similar offence, or complaint was lodged on the same set of facts, the accused cannot be again tried and dealt for 4 2017 SCC online KAR 5275 17 similar offences which amounts to double jeopardy which is enunciated under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. and also Article 20(2) of the constitution of India. Accordingly, the subsequent case was quashed.
19. With these main grounds, learned counsel submitted that the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Sessions Judge needs no interference and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
20. We have perused the appeal memo, judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge and also evidence on record.
21. The learned Sessions Judge has framed 6 points for consideration and also referred to the case of the prosecution and the arguments advanced in detail by both the State Public Prosecutor and also the defense counsel.
22. Learned Sessions Judge has referred to the evidence of PW.1 complainant who is also the father of deceased Pavithra and also PW.2 who is the mother of 18 deceased Pavithra both of them have spoken about the demand and acceptance of dowry and physical and mental cruelty meted out by the accused persons. Learned Sessions Judge has stated that the evidence of PWs. 3 and 4 who are the sister and brother of deceased Pavithra have not corroborated the evidence of PW.1- father of the deceased Pavithra. The evidence of sister, brother and other witnesses regarding demand of dowry and giving Rs.3 lakhs as dowry are not reliable. He has further referred to each witnesses. Except two cheques of Rs.50,000/- each (i.e.Rs.1,00,000/-) given in the month of March, 2007 itself i.e. four months prior to the marriage and there is no other evidence that any cash was given. In this regard, the learned Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the evidences.
23. Learned Sessions Judge also referred to the evidence of witnesses with regard to 150gms of gold Relying on Ex.P9- receipt of the jewelry shop which shows that only 100gms of gold was given at the time of marriage to deceased Pavithra as a customary but it was given as a dowry cannot be believed at all. 19
24. Learned Sessions Judge found that the allegation of cruelty also cannot be believed because immediately after marriage, accused No.1 and deceased Pavithra were residing in Mangaluru. Therefore, the question of harassment from other accused persons either physically or mentally to the deceased Pavithra cannot be believed at all.
25. The learned Sessions Judge found that there is no evidence to show whether the accused persons were present before Trial Court on 06.10.2009. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge held that the evidence of investigating officer in this regard indicates that there is no material to show the presence of the accused on 06.10.2009 at JMFC Court. The learned Sessions Judge referred to the death note at Ex.P4 and also considered the evidence of witnesses in this regard and found that the said death note does not show any allegation of either dowry demand or cruelty and the death note does not indicate for what reason and in what 20 aspect the accused persons are responsible for her death is not forthcoming.
26. Learned Sessions Judge also referred to the evidence of PW.12-Advocate under whom this deceased Pavithra was working as she was also an advocate shows that act of deceased Pavithra committing suicide has any nexus and with the accused, there is no evidence about any abusive words used by deceased Pavithra.
27. Learned Sessions Judge has stated that the defense evidence of accused No.1 as he being lab technician is not reliable as he has not led medical evidence with regard his defense. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the defense evidence of DW.1 but however, the learned Sessions Judge came to conclusion that, as the prosecution has failed to prove the initial burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and any evidence placed before the Court create doubt about prosecution evidence and acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt. 21
28. We have also perused the evidence of prosecution witnesses and re-appreciate the same.
29. PW.1 Bhadregowda is the father of the deceased who has lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. In his evidence he has stated about marriage of deceased with accused No.1 and also demand of amount. His evidence shows that the deceased Pavithra was working as advocate in the chambers of Jwalakumar who is examined as PW.12. He also admitted that accused No.1 is known to the family of the deceased Pavithra for a long time before marriage. But his evidence in examination- in-chief is general and vague about mental cruelty. He has stated that accused were insisting her to bring more dowry. It also stated by PW.1 that the accused No.1 and other accused insisted the deceased Pavithra, not to give birth to a child. These are the allegations stated by PW.1. It is also stated in examination in chief that he was not present at Belur Court when the accused alleged to have uttered insulting words to deceased Pavithra which could cause mental cruelty to her. According to the prosecution after taking his daughter to the Belur 22 Court, PW.1 left her in the Court and returned to the Court only in the evening. Therefore, only on the basis of some information stated to have been given by deceased Pavithra he appears to have given evidence.
30. In examination in chief itself, he has stated that on the next day, the deceased Pavithra has committed suicide by hanging herself. With the help of PW.14, he gave the complaint. There was a death note near the place where the deceased Pavithra has committed suicide. It is contrary to the evidence of Tahasildar and inquest panchanama because according to Tahasildar, the death note was given to him at the time of inquest panchnama and he handed over to the police constable. PW.1 has stated about the photos regarding the gold ornaments prepared. Of course all these facts are not disputed. But his cross examination reveals that the accused No.1 was residing in his house only prior to marriage. The accused No.1 has completed primary education in his house only. At the time of marriage, the accused was working as lab technician in Mangaluru and deceased Pavithra was working as advocate. At the 23 time of marriage PW.1 knew the status of family of the accused. He denied the suggestion that she was having epileptiform discharges disease prior to marriage. He also denied that she is suffering from polymerases disease. He admitted that she had only pain in her neck and he does not know that there was any disease to his daughter. PW.1 has expressed his ignorance about accused No.1 got treated her daughter at Neuro Centre at Mallikatta, Mangaluru. His evidence regarding accused No.1 demanding dowry and giving Rs.2 lakhs in cash to the accused is not corroborated by any other witnesses, PW.1 has admitted that he has not maintained the account in respect of marriage expenses. On the other hand it is the defense of the accused that the said two cheques was given towards marriage expenses. PW.1 has denied the suggestion that because of the ill health and the mental disorder, the deceased Pavithra committed suicide, she was frustrated and was in depression mood. His evidence is not corroborated with regard to demand of dowry or harassing her. 24
31. PW.2 Sharadamma has clearly admitted that accused No.1 has informed her that because of consuming tablets, the deceased Pavithra was admitted to hospital. This corroborates to the defense evidence of accused that the deceased Pavithra was having the tendency of committing suicide. PW.2 also admitted that the owner of the house got admitted her to Mangaluru hospital for consuming pills. She also stated that on the day the deceased commit suicide i.e. on 07.10.2009, she was very normal and she was talking to her sister's daughter and also talked with her lawyer and in evening she has committed suicide. It is evident that on 07.09.2010, the alleged incident had taken place. No incident took place on that day which could drive or incite her to commit suicide. Because, she was normal on that day as per evidence of PW.2.
32. PW.2 has further stated that in fact there was a panchayat and in that panchyath, the accused No.1 has admitted that they have agreed to give Rs.5,50,000/- as maintenance to the deceased Pavithra but they did not give any amount. But subsequently, this case was filed. 25 It appears from her evidence that if at all the accused have agreed to give maintenance amount to the deceased Pavithra in the panchayat, then the question of demanding any dowry or insisting her to bring dowry does not exist at all.
33. PW.Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were sister, brother- in-law and brother of the deceased Pavithra. Their evidence also clearly indicates that the accused No.1 was known to them prior to his marriage with deceased Pavithra.
34. Pw.4 has stated that he has not seen any cash amount of Rs.3 lakhs which was given to Accused No.2 who is the father of accused No.1. Regarding demanding of dowry, the evidences of PW.Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 is not corroborated with each other. Regarding ill- treatment and harassing, their evidence is vague and general one. It is evident that the accused No.1 or other accused persons have subjected the deceased to cruelty as defined under Section 498A of IPC, except these witnesses, the prosecution has not examined any of the 26 independent witnesses who have spoken about demand of dowry or any mental or physical harassment. The other witnesses PW.8 who is the relative of deceased and PW.9 have stated about taking the deceased Pavithra's body to Belur Hospital. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are inquest panchanamas.
35. PW.12 is one Sri. Jwalakumar, advocate under whom the deceased Pavithra was practicing at Bengaluru from the year 1984. The deceased was working as advocate from the year 2002 to 2005. After her marriage, she left her matrimonial house. Thereafter, she met PW.12 3-4 times and told PW.12 that as her family affairs was not good, she was residing in her parents' house and suggested to resolve the family matter and to continue her practice. She also stated about the incident which pained her and also informed about her brother's case. In the cross examination, he admitted that he does not know any reason and not stated anything as to what was the incident which caused mental agony to her. Therefore, his evidence does not disclose that the deceased was in stress or in a state of 27 mind so as to commit suicide. His evidence does not disclose anything about or any act stated to have been cause for deceased committing suicide. His evidence does not help the prosecution any way.
36. PW.15 Madhukumar, working at hotel has only stated about receiving body of the deceased Pavithra. PW.16 and PW.17 are the panchas for seizure of two cheques and material objects pertaining to deceased Pavithra respectively.
37. PW.18 Nataraj, Tahasildar who stated about the conduct of inquest panchanama. PW.19 A.B Manchegowda, Assistant Engineer had stated about preparing the sketch of the place of offence and PW.20 S. Satyamurthy, Retd. Gram Panchayat Secretary has stated about giving the house extract to Investigating Officer. PW.21 Chetan, Medical Officer had stated about the conducting of post mortem. The doctor has given report as per Ex.P25 and has mentioned about ligature marks found on the body of deceased Pavithra. He has stated that there was a fracture hyoid bone, ligature 28 mark from right ear, left ear in front of the neck about 22 cms. After securing report from forensic science laboratory, the doctor has opined that the death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. Of course in this case, the death is due to suicide is not disputed by anybody. The question is that whether the accused are responsible for death or suicide.
38. Pw.22 Kumar, Police Constable has stated about sending of material objects seized to forensic science laboratory.
39. PW.23 Devendra, Police Constable who has given the material objections to Mysuru forensic science laboratory.
40. PW.24 B.Thimmappa, Assistant Sub Inspector who has arrested accused No.2.
41. Pw.25 B.T. Ningarajappa, Chief Officer has stated about sending of FIR to the Court and to his higher officers.
29
42. PW.29 Sathyanarayana.Y, Police Inspector had stated about receiving FIR and registering the case.
43. PW.32 Zeenath.M, Incharge Scientific Officer, FSL, Bengaluru stated that he is working in forensic science laboratory in documentary section and he is a handwriting expert. In his evidence he has stated that he has seen the death note and the writings of deceased Pavithra. He opined that both are written by the same person and he has given a report according to Ex.P35.
44. PW.33 Sudhakar Nayak, Chief Manager, State Bank of Mysore and PW.34 S.R.Kuduva, Retd. Manager who have stated about the realization of cheque amounting to Rs.50,000/- in favour of accused No.2.
45. PW.35 Ramesh Kumar, Goldsmith has stated about preparing the gold ornaments and giving receipt in this regard as per Ex.P9 and he has stated that the said ornaments weighs about 100 gms and 200 milis. 30
46. Pw.36 Assistant Manager, Vijaya Bank had stated that the accused was their customer. This is oral evidences of prosecution.
47. Against these, accused No.1 has given his defense evidence wherein he has stated that the deceased was suffering from epileptiform discharges and she was taking treatment at Mallikatta Neuro Center. He came to know about this after marriage and he also came to know from Mallikatta Neuro Center report stating that the deceased Pavithra is suffering from mental disorder and she has suicidal tendency. The doctor has given certain tablets. On 23.03.2008, the owner of his house called him and told that the deceased has consumed tablets and immediately he got admitted her to Colasco Hospital and thereafter discharged and the doctor has told that because of consumption of 18 pills at a time by the deceased Pavithra it has caused some disorder in her health. He has produced documents relating to this. DW.1 was cross examined and it was denied that she is not suffering from any kind of disease. Learned Sessions Judge has not believed the evidence of DW.1 regarding 31 the mental disorder of the deceased Pavithra in the absence of evidence of expert such as doctor. Of course without there being any corroboration by medical evidence the Trial Court has rightly rejected the evidence of DW.1. Now it is to be seen whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 304B of IPC and also Sections 3,4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
48. It is pertinent to note here that Ex.P37 is the copy of the judgment dated 07.07.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Sn.Dvn) and JMFC, Belur in C.C.No.35/2009 and Ex.P36(b) is the complaint lodged by the said deceased Pavithra against the accused wherein she has made same allegation as made by her father in the present case. The said complaint shows that from 23.10.2008, the deceased was residing with her parents. According to her, she was thrown out of her house and accused insisted her to bring additional dowry. Ex.P37 is the certified copy as stated supra wherein the accused No.1 and 5 shown here are the same accused in the 32 present case also and the witnesses PW.1, PW.2, PW.5 and PW.29 in this case are the witnesses in the said case. After considering the evidence, the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur found that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused and the allegation of the charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 109 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not proved. In that case also, it was an allegation that the accused were insisting deceased Pavithra to bring Rs.3 lakhs cash as dowry and 150gms worth of gold. In the present case also, the same allegation of demand of dowry and the same ingredients are stated in the complaint. The only difference is this complaint was lodged by her father after her death making same allegation as mentioned by deceased Pavithra in earlier complaint. The charge in this case and point of consideration before both the Courts are practically one and the same. Ill-treatment and dowry demand and cruelty to the deceased Pavithra to bring dowry is also similar and it is also evident that she was residing separately from accused since 33 22.10.2008. This suicide incident occurred only on 07.10.2009. There is a gap of one year between the date from which the deceased Pavithra was residing separately from the accused. She committed suicide and therefore question of causing cruelty soon before death does not arise at all. There is no circumstantial evidencet show that any mental cruelty caused to the deceased Pavithra by accused. In fact, she filed a case for maintenance under criminal case Sections 498A, 506, 109 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against accused.
49. In order to attract the ingredients of Section 498A of IPC, the prosecution must prove that there was a cruelty caused either by husband or his relatives and the cruelty is of two types. It may be mental or physical. The said Section explanation (a) and (b) reads as under:-
Section 498A of IPC. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.34
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means -
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.] The object of this 498(A) was to punish the husband and his relative who coerce the woman or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demand of dowry. Further, Section 113A and 113B of Evidence Act also endorsed the rising presumption in respect of (i) treating the married woman by her husband or his relative. To prove both the ingredients of the same, the prosecution must to prove the allegation as alleged. In the present case, there is no evidence of any physical cruelty. On the other hand, it is alleged that there was an incident prior to one day of the alleged suicide, on same set of allegations of cruelty under Section 498A and Sections 3 35 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act ended in acquittal of the accused earlier.
50. Further regarding abetment of accused to commit suicide, the prosecution heavily relied on alleged death note which is at Ex.P4 by deceased Pavithra. The death note reads as under:
"£À£Àß ¸Á«UÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¥ÀæPÁ±ï, CªÀ£À vÁ¬Ä AiÀıÉÆÃzsÀªÀÄä, CªÀ£À vÀAzÉ ZÀ£ÉßÃUËqÀ, CªÀ£À vÀAV ±ÀĨsÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ£À vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ CPÀÌ£À UÀAqÀ GzÀÄ¸É UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÀÄAeÉÃUËqÀ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼Éà PÁgÀt. EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼É®ègÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀݵÀÄÖ ¢£À £À£ÀUÉ »A¸É PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, ¸Á®zÉ J¯Áè d£ÀgÀ §½AiÀÄÆ £À£Àß §UÉÎ K£ÉãÉÆà ºÉý CªÀgɯÁè §AzÀÄ £À£Àß §½ PÉlÖ-PÉlÖzÁV PÉüÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. DzÀÝjAzÀ, EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼É®èjUÀÆ PÁ£ÀƤ£À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ²PÉë PÉÆlÄÖ £À£Àß ¸Á«UÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ zÉÆgÀQ¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV ¨ÉÃrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ."
The translation in English is as under:
My husband Prakash, his mother Yashodamma, his father Channegowda, his sister Shubha and his mother's sister husband Manjegowda of Uduse grama are the persons who are responsible for my death. All of these persons tortured me when I was at their home and they told about me to all the people and the people came and ask rubbishly about me. Hence, I beg to give justice to my death by punishing all of them as per law.
51. The deceased was a law graduate. If at all actually she intends to commit suicide, she could have 36 assigned the reasons which lead her to commit suicide in her death note. On the other hand, she has filed the case against accused No.1 for maintenance. They are not in good talking terms. As already discussed above, there is no evidence with regard to what has happened in the Trial Court in the maintenance case on 06.10.2009.
52. On perusing the complaint at Ex.P1 which is lodged by father of deceased Pavithra by name Bhadregowda and the complaint lodged by deceased Pavithra which is at Ex.P36(b) before the Sub Inspector of Police, Belur dated 17.11.2008, the nature of allegations and the contents regarding the cruelty, demand of dowry and the panchayath talks are similar. Only difference in the present case is that father of deceased Pavithra had lodged complaint against the accused who were said be accused in the complaint lodged by deceased Pavithra as per Ex.P7. Learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur has considered the aspects of cruelty under Section 498A and the offence under Section 3,4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and come to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the 37 guilt of the accused miserably. The witnesses are also practically one and the same in both the cases. Therefore, in view of Section 300 of Cr.P.C and as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various decisions stated supra, on that ground also the appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
53. The evidence of PW.2 shows that the deceased was normal on the date of committing suicide. Therefore, absolutely there is no mens rea or incitement or instigation stated to have been caused by accused persons which responsible for the deceased to commit suicide. Nowadays the rates of suicide death are increasing day by day. We are reading in daily newspaper that many people are committing suicide for silly reasons. Suicide is a process wherein a person gets dejected over his/her life and decides to bid adieu to the planet. The person who commits suicide becomes victim of the circumstances. When hopes are shattered, no chance of seeing a better situation, gets depressed and come to a irreconcilable conclusion that death is the only alternative and resorts to extreme step. It is the mental 38 attitude that a person decides to die and it is the instigation to commit suicide when the mental state is inducted by others in which event they would be committing instigation to commit suicide. On the other hand, though accused has taken a defense as that deceased Pavithra had developed suicidal tendency, that possibility also cannot be ruled out in view of deceased committing suicide one year after separation from her family. Therefore, ingredients of Section 306 of IPC are also not attracted.
54. As far as Section 304B is concerned, the death has not resulted for the accused making any unlawful demand of dowry. On the same set of facts, same set of allegations and similar charges in earlier case is ended in acquittal of the accused by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur as referred above. Now the same allegation is made against the accused. Therefore, the question of reconsidering the same does not arise in view of Section 300 of Cr.P.C. which was rightly relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused. There is no legally admissible evidence to show that the accused to meet 39 their unlawful demand and there is no connection or nexus between the cause of death of the deceased or any act of the accused. There is no evidence to show that soon before the death she was subject to mental cruelty. In absence of any such evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC. Insofar as the Dowry Prohibition Act as already discussed, absolutely there is no evidence.
55. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kolla Veera Raghav Rao vs. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao and Anr reported in AIR 2011 SC 641 and mainly relied on para Nos. 5, 6 and 7 which reads as follows:
"5. It may be noticed that there is a difference between the language used in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. Article 20(2) states:
"no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once."
6. On the other hand, Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. states:
40
"300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence-
(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court or competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offences shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-
section (1) of section 221 or for which he might have been convicted under sub-
Section (2) thereof."
7. Thus, it can be seen that Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that 'no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once', Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts. Section 306 of IPC is enumerated as under:
"Presumption of Abatement- as to offence of abetment to commit suicide, section113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 lays down that (a) if a married lady commits suicide within seven years of her marriage; (b) if her husband or his relative had subjected her during her coverture to cruelty within the meaning of the term as defined in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, then the Court may raise the presumption of fact that the husband or such relative of her husband abetted the suicide.41
Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows:
1[113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.-- When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.1[113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.--When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband." Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty"
shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).] 42 The mere fact that if a married woman commits suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 would not automatically apply.
The presumption under section 113-A is discretionary and the Court can consider the nature of cruelty to which the woman was subjected to, having regard to the meaning of the word "cruelty" in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The legislative mandate is that where a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband has subjected her to cruelty, the presumption as defined under section 498-A IPC, may attract, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide has been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. The term "the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband" would indicate that the presumption is discretionary."
"Abetment of suicide is confined to the case of persons who aid or abet the commission of the suicide. In the matter of an offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, abetment must attract the definition thereof in section 107 IPC. Abetment is constituted by instigating a person to commit an offence or engaging in a conspiracy to commit, aid or intentional aiding a person to commit 43 it. It would be evident from a plan reading of section 306 read with section 107 IPC that, in order to make out the offence of abetment or suicide, necessary proof required is that the culprit is either instigating the victim to commit suicide or has engaged himself in a conspiracy with others for the commission of suicide, or has intentionally aided by act or illegal omission in the commission of suicide."
56. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar versus State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 371 at para No.12 and the relevant portion which reads as under:
"12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25th July, 1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and had reportedly told the deceased 'to go and die'. For this, the courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan, brother of the deceased, made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. when reportedly the deceased, after coming back from the house of the appellant, told him that the appellant had humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161 44 Cr.P.C. is annexed as annexure P-3 to this appeal and going through the statement, we find that he has not stated that the deceased had told him that the appellant had asked him 'to go and die'. Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotional. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25th July, 1998 ensued by quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27th July, 1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been used by the appellant on 25th July, 1998 drive the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27th July, 1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25th July, 1998. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27th July, 1998 would itself clearly pointed out that it is not the direct result of the quarrel taken place on 25th July, 1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used the abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the courts below."45
57. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Netai Dutta versus State of W.B. reported in (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 659 at para No.6 of the said judgment is relied which reads as under:
"6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.
58. As per the offence under Section 304B is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborated the same in decision held in the case of Durga Prasad & Anr vs State of M.P. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 73 wherein held at para Nos. 16,17,18 and 19 which reads as under:
16. In this case, one other aspect has to be kept in mind, namely, that no charges were framed against the Appellants under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 46 and the evidence led in order to prove the same for the purposes of Section 304-B IPC was related to a demand for a fan only.
17. The decision cited by Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, in Biswajit Halder's case (supra) was rendered in almost similar circumstances. In order to bring home a conviction under Section 304- B IPC, it will not be sufficient to only lead evidence showing that cruelty or harassment had been meted out to the victim, but that such treatment was in connection with the demand for dowry. In our view, the prosecution in this case has failed to fully satisfy the requirements of both Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
18. Accordingly, we are unable to agree with the views expressed both by the trial Court, as well as the High Court, and we are of the view that no case can be made out on the ground of insufficient evidence against the Appellants for conviction under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The decision cited by Ms. Makhija in Anand Kumar's case (supra) deals with the proposition of shifting of onus of the burden of proof relating to the presumption which the Court is to draw under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and does not help the case of the State in a situation where there is no material to presume that an offence under Section 304-B IPC had been committed.
19. In that view of the matter, we allow the Appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the Appellants of offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The judgment of the High Court impugned in the instant Appeal is also set 47 aside. In the event, the Appellants are on bail, they shall be discharged from their bail bonds, and, in the event they are in custody, they should be released forthwith.
59. On entire re-appreciation of evidence, it is evident that there are material contradiction and inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution. There is no corroboration with the evidence of prosecution witnesses. On the other hand, it is evident that on the same set of allegations and similar type of charges, the accused were tried and acquitted. Of course, after the death of Pavithra, this second complaint was filed making similar allegation of cruelty and dowry harassment. But prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. If from evidence two views are possible to the view favourable to the accused will have to be accepted.
60. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Versus State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 Supreme Court Cases 116 held at para No.163 which reads as under: 48
"We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh,(l) this Court made the following observations:
"Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence."
61. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the power of the appellate court in interfering with the judgment of acquittal held that unless the judgment of trial court is perverse, illegal and not based on sound principles regarding appreciation of evidence, the appellate court shall not interfere in the judgment of acquittal, because the judgment of acquittal gives double presumption of innocence to the accused. 49
62. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision in the case of Sampat Babso Kale and Another v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 4 SCC 739], at para-8 has held thus:
"8. With regard to the powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, the law is well established that the presumption of innocence which is attached to every accused person gets strengthened when such an accused is acquitted by the trial court and the High Court should not lightly interfere with the decision of the trial court which has recorded the evidence and observed the demeanour of witnesses. This Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415], laid down the following principles:-
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.50
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to
interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.51
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
63. In view of the principles stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred above and on re- assessing the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses and also for the discussion made above, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the entire evidence meticulously and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt. We find that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is neither illegal, perverse, erroneous nor the judgment has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere in the judgment of acquittal. The appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. 52
Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
1. The appeal filed by the State-appellant is stands dismissed.
2. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal dated 16.10.2015 passed by learned II Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Hassan in S.C.No.33/2010 against the respondents/accused is hereby confirmed.
3. Bail bond, if any, executed by the accused, the same shall stand cancelled.
4. Office is directed to send back the records to the trial court.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SSD