Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mahalakshmi on 17 February, 2020
Spl.C.C.253/2018
1
IN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONALCITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
Dated this the 17 th Day of February, 2020
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU
SPECIAL C.C. No.253/2018
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
By Cubbon Park Police Station,
Bengaluru
Public Prosecutor-Bangalore
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED Mahalakshmi
W/o. Murali Kumar, 30 years,
R/at. Near Masidi, Cauvery Nagar,
Mahadevapura,
Bengaluru-21.
Smt. N.G.-Advocate
1 Date of commission of offence 21-02-2017
2 Date of report of occurrence 21-02-2017
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
2
3 Date of arrest of Accused
Date of release of Accused ON BAIL
Period undergone in custody
by Accused
4 Date of commencement of evidence 20-07-2018
5 Date of closing of evidence 31-07-2017
6 Name of the complainant Suresh
7 Offences complained of Sec.309, 307-IPC
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused is acquitted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final
order
J U D GM EN T
This charge sheet filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, Cubbon
Park Police Station, Bengaluru, against accused for the offences
punishable under Section 309, 307 of I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the
prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
That on 21-02-2017 at about 11.30a.m., the accused
having an intention to murder her three daughters-Cw.2 to
Cw.4 taken them to the Police Commissioner's Office, near
ladies toilet of the said office, forcibly made Cw.2 to Cw.4 to
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
3
consume poison and she also consumed the poison for herself
with an intention to commit suicide. On the basis of complaint
lodged by the complainant, the police registered the case
against accused in Crime No.49/2017 for the offences
punishable under Section 309, 307 of IPC.
3. The Investigating Officer has investigated the same
and filed charge sheet against accused for the offences
punishable under Section 309, 307 of IPC. Thereafter, after
filing the charge sheet, the accused appeared before the
committal Court, the committal Court furnished her copy of
charge sheet as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The
Committal Court passed an order for committing the case to the
Hon'ble Principal City Civil & Session Judge-Bengaluru, since
the victims are minors and in turn the said case was made over
to this Court for further proceedings.
4. After receiving the record by this Court, the
summons was issued to the accused, in pursuance of said
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
4
summons, the accused appeared before the Court and she was
enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the learned advocate for accused
submitted that there is no arguments before framing charge and
requested to frame charge. As a result the charge was framed
against accused, the contents of charge read over and explained
in Kannada to the accused. She pleaded not guilty and submit
crimes to be tried. Thereafter the case against accused was set
down for prosecution evidence.
5. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the
accused has examined in all 19 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.19, got
marked as many as 24 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P24 and one
material object as MO1 and closed its side evidence. In view of
incriminating evidence appeared against the accused, she was
examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording her
statement. The accused denied the alleged incriminating
evidence appeared against her as false. Earlier to that the
accused complied the provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., by
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
5
executing personal bond and surety bond. Thereafter arguments
heard from both the sides and the matter is set down for
judgment.
6. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and
arguments submitted by both the sides, the following points
that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. ಆರರರರಪಯಯ ದನನನಕಕ21.02.2017gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 11.30 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
£ÀUÀgÀ PÀ§â£ï¥ÁPïð ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À PÀ«ÄµÀ£Àgï PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è
PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÁQë-2, ¸ÁQë-3, ¸ÁQë-4 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ «µÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀÄr¹
¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 307gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ
¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
2. ಆರರರರಪಯಯ ದನನನಕಕ21.02.2017gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 11.30 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
£ÀUÀgÀ PÀ§â£ï¥ÁPïð ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À PÀ«ÄµÀ£Àgï PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ DªÀgÀtzÀ°è
PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÁQë-2, ¸ÁQë-3, ¸ÁQë-4gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ «µÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀÄr¹
vÁ£ÀÄ «µÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀÄrzÀÄ DvÀäºÀvÉåUÉ ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A
309gÀrAiÀÄ°è ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ
¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?
3. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: In the Negative.
Point No.3: As per the final orders for the following:
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
6
R EA S ON S
8. Point No.1 and 2:- As these points are inter-related,
hence I have taken up together for my consideration in order to
avoid repetition of reasons.
9. Perused the entire record, charge sheet, evidence
produced both at oral and documentary by the prosecution and
arguments canvassed by the learned advocate for accused and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
10. In order to prove the alleged offences against the
accused, the prosecution has examined in all 19 witnesses as
Pw.1 to Pw.19, got marked 24 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P24
and one material object as MO1. As per the prosecution case,
Pw.5 is the complaint, Pw.1 to Pw.3 are Mahazar witnesses
Pw.4, Pw.6 and Pw.7 are victim girls, Pw.8 is the grand mother
of the victim girls, Pw.9 to Pw.11 are circumstantial witnesses,
Pw.12 to Pw.14 are doctors, Pw.17 is SJPU social workers,
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
7
Pw.18 is the Scientific Officer, Pw.15, Pw.16 and Pw.19 are the
Police personnels and is the Investigation Officer. Hence, this
Court shall proceed to see whether the available evidence of said
witnesses are sufficient for establishing the alleged offences
against accused.
11. In order to establish the alleged offences against the
accused the prosecution is required to prove that on 21-02-
2017 at about 11.30a.m., the accused having an intention to
murder her three daughters-Cw.2 to Cw.4 taken them to the
Police Commissioner's Office, near ladies toilet of the said office,
forcibly made Cw.2 to Cw.4 to consume poison and she also
consumed the poison for herself with an intention to commit
suicide and thereby committed offences punishable under
Section 307 and 309 of IPC. Hence this Court shall proceed to
see whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all
the above said ingredients of the alleged offences against the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
8
12. Before venturing into scan the available material
evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition
of offences under Section 307 and 309 of IPC.
Section 307 of IPC defines that:
Attempt to murder-Whoever does any act with
such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances
that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of
murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is cause to any person
by such act, the offender shall be liable either to
imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is herein
before mentioned.
Section 309 of IPC defines that:
Attempt to suicide-Whoever attempts to commit
suicide and does any act towards the commission of such
offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a
term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with
both.
With these observations, now left with the available
material evidence produced by the prosecution to consider
whether it has proved the alleged offences against the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt or it probabalises the defense of
the accused.
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
9
13. By going through the evidence of Pw.5-Suresh-the
complainant, he has deposed that he doesn't know the accused
and her children, he doesn't know the mother and grand mother
of accused and victim girls, he doesn't know the case of
prosecution, he doesn't know what case registered against
accused, he doesn't know read and write of Kannada, except
making his signature. The LTM in Ex.P3 is his LTM, on the say
of the police he has put his LTM instead of signing the said
documents. He went to the police station to lodge complaint
about the stolen of his mobile phone by somebody and at that
time the police obtained his LTM, he doesn't known what had
written in the said document.
14. The prosecution treated this witness as hostile to the
case of prosecution and elicited the admitted facts of the name,
address, mobile number mentioned in the said documents
belongs to him, but he denied about the incident and lodging of
complaint stating that the accused, victim girl and the grand
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
10
mother of victim girl are known to him and on 21-02-2017 at
about 11.30a.m., he has received phone call from Yeshodamma,
stating that her daughter-the accused had taken her three
daughters towards Commissioner's Office, she is afraid what
things are going to happen and also requested to see the
situation, as such he immediately taken autorickshaw towards
Commissioner's Office and at about 12.35p.m., the second
daughter of accused-Bindushree called him over phone stating
that her mother made Bhomika and Rohanshree to consume
poison and her mother also consumed poison and called him to
come over there early, as such within 20 minutes he reached
near Police Commissioner's office, searched them near said
office and came to know that they are near ladies toilet,
immediately he has informed the same to the police and with
the assistance of the police, he has admitted them to the
hospital for treatment, at that time he came to know the
accused with an intention to kill her daughters and having an
intention to commit suicide by herself, made her children to
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
11
consume poison and she has also consumed poison and also he
has given the compliant as per Ex.P3, for that he has denied the
same and his definite answer is that he has not given any
complaint as stated above. Through the evidence of material
witness-the complainant, the prosecution failed to corroborate
the case of prosecution against accused beyond all reasonable
doubt.
15. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-Bhoomika-the
first daughter of accused, she has deposed that her father's
name is Manjunatha, Bindu and Rohana are her younger
sisters and Yeshoda is her grand mother. They are residing at
Cauvery Nagar, her maternal grand parents, mother, brothers of
her mother, herself and her two younger sisters are residing in
her house. She is studying 9th standard at Krishna High School,
her father is not residing along with her, he has married
another lady. She doesn't know with whom her mother is living.
When she was studying at 8th standard, her mother got second
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
12
marriage with one Murali, the said Murali always quarreling
with her mother, but she doesn't know the reasons and he is
residing in the opposite side of her house. During the year
2017 at the month of March, one day in the morning the
quarrel took place between her mother and said Murali, but she
doesn't know the reasons, in that quarrel nothing has happened
to her mother, her mother not created any problem to her and
her younger sisters. She doesn't know Suresh uncle, the police
have not taken her and her sisters to the hospital. Ex.P4(a) is
her signature.
16. Further she has deposed that her step father not
behaved properly with her, as such she went to the police
station, at that time the police obtained the said signature. The
police had also taken her to the hospital for check up, due to
non-behaviour of her step father on her. She doesn't know what
case registered against her mother. At no point of time her
mother made her to consume poison. Her mother due to
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
13
harassment of her step father got made her and her younger
sisters to consume poison and she has not given any statement
against her mother as per Ex.P4, she doesn't know what had
written in Ex.P4. She is residing along with her mother and her
mother alone taking care of her and her sisters. By going
through the evidence of this witness she has not corroborated
the case of prosecution and turned hostile to prosecution case.
17. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-Bindu-the
second daughter of accused, she has deposed that the accused
is her mother, she doesn't know what case registered against
her by the police. Cw.6-Bhomika is her elder sister, Cw.8-
Rohana is her younger sister, Ex.P5(a) is her signature, she
doesn't know what had written in Ex.P5. At no point of time, her
mother made her to consume poison and she has not given any
statement before police stating that her mother made her to
consume poison as per Ex.P5. This witness also turned hostile
to the case of prosecution.
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
14
18. By going through the evidence Pw.7-Rohana-the
younger daughter of the accused, she has deposed that the
accused is her mother and she has not done anything on her
and her elder sisters. Ex.P6(a) is her signature. She doesn't
know what had written in Ex.P6. At no point of time her mother
made her and her sisters to consume poison and she has not
given any statement before police as per Ex.P6. This witness
also turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
19. The prosecution treated all the three witnesses as
hostile witnesses and suggested each and every word of Ex.P4
to Ex.P6, stating that their mother who is the accused herein
was quarreling with their step father-Murali in respect of her
daughters who are victim girls and on 21-02-2017 both were
quarreling in loud manner and also their mother was crying. On
the next day in the morning the accused had taken them in an
autorickshaw near Commissioner's Office and also made them
to consume poison, she has also consumed poison, thereafter
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
15
the police and one Suresh taken them to the hospital for
treatment, for that all the three witnesses clearly deposed that
they have not given any statements as stated above as per
Ex.P4 to Ex.P6. Through the material witnesses-the victim girls
the prosecution fails to prove the alleged offences against the
accused as per the case of prosecution beyond all reasonable
doubt.
20. By going through the evidence of Pw.8-Yeshoda, the
mother of accused and grand mother of victim girl, she has
deposed that her daughter not done anything to her grand
daughters, she doesn't know what case registered against the
accused, at no point of time the accused for herself consumed
poison and made her grand daughters to consume poison. She
has not given any statement before police. The husband's name
of accused is Manjunatha, both have entered into an agreement
and residing separately. Murali is the second husband of her
daguther-the accused. The said Murali always creating problem
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
16
to her daughter and harassing her and to her grand daughters.
The said Murali is a Cab driver, due to harassment of Murali
what steps taken by her daughter and grand daughters she
doesn't know and she has not given any statement before police.
21. Since this witness turned hostile to the case of
prosecution, the prosecution treated her as hostile witness and
suggested each and every word of Ex.P7 with regard to the
harassment given by Murali to her daughter and grand
daughters, due to that her daughter went to Mahadevapura
police station to lodge complaint against him, his brother and
mother, for that they have threaten her in dire consequences.
Thereafter in the morning due to anger at about 09.30a.m., her
daughter had taken her the victim girls-Cw.6 to Cw.8 in an
auto, on seeing the same she has called Suresh-the known
person and requested him to ascertain where the accused and
her daughter's children and thereafter she has received phone
call from-Suresh stating that near Police Commissioner Officer,
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
17
her daughter consumed poison and also made her grand
daughter to consume poison and they were admitted to Bowring
Hospital. Immediately she went to Bowring Hospital and saw
her daughter and grand daughters and also given statement as
per Ex.P7, for that she has denied the same. Her definite
answer is that she has not given any statement as per Ex.P7.
Through the evidence of Pw.8-the grand mother of victim girl
and mother of accused, the prosecution fails to corroborates the
case of prosecution against accused beyond all reasonable
doubt.
22. By going through the evidence of Pw.9-Kamala-Home
Guard-1517. She has deposed that she has not seen the
accused earlier, since number of persons are going to the Police
Commissioner's Office, she cannot remember about the
accused. The Investigating Officer not enquired her and she
has not given any statement before Investigating Officer. The
prosecution treated her as hostile witness and suggested each
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
18
and every word of Ex.P8, for that she has denied the same.
Through the evidence of Pw.9, the prosecution failed to
corroborate the case of prosecution against accused beyond all
reasonable doubt.
23. By going through the evidence of Pw.10-Ravi Kumar
H.G-Home Guard, he has deposed that he doesn't know
anything about the case, he has not seen the accused earlier
any where, he has not seen the accused making her three
daughters to consume poison and also she herself consuming
poison and he has not given any statement before Investigating
Officer stating that he has seen the same. Since this witness
turned hostile to the prosecution, the prosecution treated her as
hostile witness and suggested each and every word of Ex.P9, for
that he has denied the same. Through the evidence of Pw.10,
the prosecution failed to corroborate the case of prosecution
against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
24. By going through the evidence Pw.11-Shivalinga
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
19
Swamy-Home Guard-477, he has deposed that he doesn't know
anything about the case, he has not seen the accused earlier
any where, he has not seen the accused making her three
daughters to consume poison and also she herself consuming
poison and he has not given any statement before Investigating
Officer stating that he has seen the same. Since this witness
turned hostile to the case of prosecution, the prosecution
treated him as hostile witness and suggested each and every
word of Ex.P10, for that he has denied the same. Through the
evidence of Pw.11, the prosecution failed to corroborate the case
of prosecution against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
25. By going through the evidence of Pw.12-Dr.
Poornima, she has deposed that on 21-02-2017 as per request
of Cubbon Park Police at about 05.00p.m., at Bowring Hospital,
she has examined Cw.6 to Cw.8-the victim girls and stated that
they are in a position to give their statements, accordingly
before her the police recorded their statements as per Ex.P4 to
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
20
Ex.P6 and her signatures are Ex.P4(b) to Ex.P6(b). Here it is
relevant to note the victim girls turned hostile to the case of
prosecution and their definite answer is that they have not
given any statement as per Ex.P4 to Ex.P6. The accused tested
the veracity of evidence of this witness, except denial suggestion
nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by
her. In view of non-supporting the case of prosecution by the
victim girls, this Court opines the evidence of this witness is a
formal one.
26. By going through the evidence of Pw.17-Susana
Thomas-SJPU, she has deposed that on 25-02-2017 Cw.23
called her to the Bowring Hospital for counselling of victim girls
and recording of their statements. When she went to the above
hospital, the doctor examined the victim girls and certified that
they are able to give their statements. After counselling the
victim girls, Cw.23 recorded their statement as per Ex.P4 to
Ex.P6. Further it is her evidence the first daughter of the
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
21
accused was not in a position to give her statement, as such she
has not enquired tharoughly her and Ex.P4(d) to Ex.P6(d) are
her signatures.
27. The accused tested her veracity by eliciting some
commission and omission and also elicited that she has not
received any written information and received only phone call
from the police. Further the accused denied about counselling
of victim girls by denial suggestion, for that she has denied the
same. Since the victim girls not supported the case of
prosecution, this Court feels to observe that the evidence of this
witness is a formal one.
28. By going through the evidence of Pw.14-Dr.
B.S.Nagaraju, he has deposed that on 21-02-2017 at about
12.30p.m., the police admitted the accused due to consumption
of poison. He has washed the stomach of accused and also
taken some stomach wash samples of the accused, sent the
same for chemical examination to the FSL and admitted her to
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
22
the emergency ward. The police recorded the statement of the
accused before his Junior resident and the accused was
discharged on 28-02-2017. The discharge summary is Ex.P16
and admission sheet is Ex.P17.
29. Here it is relevant to note the complainant, victim
girl and material eye witnesses turned hostile to the case of
prosecution. The accused denied the evidence of this witness by
denial suggestion and also tested his veracity and elicited that:
"ಆರರರರಪಯ ಹರರಟರಟಯಲಲ ಇದದನತಹ ದನದವಣವನಯನ ಆ ದನ ಇದದನತಹ ಸಎನಎ-
ಡನ.ಸನಸನನ ಕಯಮನರನ ರವರಯ ಸರಲನ ಮನಡ ಎಫನ.ಎಸನ.ಎಲನ.ಗರ ಕಳಯಹಸಕರರಟಟರಯವರಯ.
ಯನವ ರರತ ಅದನಯನ ಸರಲನಮನಡರಯವರಯ ಎನಬಯದರ ಬಗರಗ ನನನಯ ತಳದಯಕರರನಡಲಲ, ಕನರಣ
ಆ ಸಮಯದಲಲ ನನನಯ ರರರರಗಗರ ಚಕತರತ ಕರರಡಯತತದರದ". Further he has admitted
that: "ಪರಲಸರಯ ನನನ ಸಮಕಕಮ ಆರರರರಪಯ ಹರರಳಕರಯನಯನ ಮನಡಕರರನಡಲಲ ಎನದರರ
ಸರ". Further it is his evidence that: " ಸನಮನನನವನಗ ಒಬಬ ವನಕತ ವಷಪನದಶನನ
ಮನಡದರರ ಆ ವನಕತಯ ರಕತದರರತತಡ ಏರಯಪರರರನಗಯತತದರ ಎನದರರ ಎಲನಲ ಸಮಯದಲರಲ
ಆಗಬರರಕರನದಲಲ, ಆದರರ ಆ ವನಕತ ಯನವ ವಷಪನದಶಣ ಮನಡರಯತನತನರರರ ಅದರ ಮರಲರ ಆ
ವನಕತಯ ರಕತದರರತತಡ ಅವಲನಬಸರಯತತದರ". Here the Investigation Officer,
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
23
not made the doctor-Sasan Kumar who sealed the stomach
wash samples bottles and sent the same to the FSL which is
absolutely fatal to the case of prosecution. Further the Junior
Resident is also not made as charge sheet witness and produced
her evidence which is also fatal to the case of prosecution.
When there is drastic stand taken by the accused, it is the
bounden duty of the prosecution to prove the alleged case
against the accused by producing the evidence of Dr. Sasan
Kumar and Junior Resident, none production of their evidence
it is absolutely fatal to the case of prosecution.
30. By going through the evidence of Pw.13-Dr.
Dhanalakshmi K, she has deposed that on 21-02-2017 at about
02.30p.m., in the hospital she has treated the victim girls who
were admitted with the history of consumption of poison and
also sexual abuse from their step father. She has given
treatment after washing of stomach of the victim girls and also
collected stomach wash samples, the same was smelling of OP
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
24
compound. She has sent collected samples for chemical
examination and also issued medical report as per Ex.P10 to
Ex.P12. Further she has also deposed about the necessary
treatment given for OP compound chemical. The Gynecologist
also tested the victim girls and submitted opinion as to no such
sexual abuse on the victim girl. Further she has also admitted
that Ex.P13 to Ex.P15 are Medical Admission Register Extract.
31. The accused tested the veracity of the evidence of
this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and she
has admitted that: "ಸನಮನನನವನಗ ವಷಸರರವನರ ಮನಡದ ವನಕತಯ ನನಡ ಮಡತ
ಏರಳತವನಗಯತತರಯತತದರ ಎನದರರ ಸರ. ಈ ಪದಕರಣದಲಲ ಚನಸನ.6 ರನದ 8 ರವರಯಗಳ ನನಡ
ಮಡತ ಸಹಜ ಸಸತಯಲಲತರತನದರರ ಸರ. ಸನಮನನನವನಗ ಒಬಬ ವನಕತಯ ರಕತಕಣವನಯನ
ಪರರಕಕಸದನಗ ಆ ವನಕತಯ ದರರಹದಲಲ ವಷ ಸರರರರಯವವದರರ ಬಗರಗ ತಳಯಯತತದರ ಎನದರರ ಸರ.
ಚನಸನ.6 ರನದ 8 ರವರ ರಕತಪರರಕರಕ ಮನಡದನಗ ರಕತದಲಲ ಓಪ ಕನನಪಪನಡನ ವಷದ
ಪರಣನಮ ಕನಡಯಬನದಲಲ ಎನದರರ ಸರ". Further she has shown her
ignorance stating that: "ರನಸನಯನಕ ಪರರಕನಕ ವರದ ನರರರವನಗ ನನನ ಬಳಗರ
ಬನದಯ ಕರರಟಟರಯವವದಲಲ ಹನಗರ ಅದನಯನ ಯನರಯ ಪಡರದಯಕರರನಡರಯ ಎನಬಯದರ ಬಗರಗ ಹರರಳಲಯ
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
25
ನನಗರಗ ಅಗಯವವದಲಲ". The above said evidence of this witness
crystallizes the latches on the part of the Investigating Officer
and also there is a doubt of commission of offence by the
accused and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.
32. Now left with the evidence of Pw.18-Dr. Vinod
Lakkappan-Scientific Officer, he has deposed in respect of
chemical examination of the articles for Cubbon Park Police
Station pertains to this case and also found the result that
colour tests and thin layer chromatography methods have
responded for the presence of Dimethoate (Organo Phosphorus
insecticide) in the article No.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. He has also
deposed one Gundamma Patil also assisted at the time chemical
examination. He has issued Ex.P19-FSL report and also
identified MO1-Aluminum empty bottle.
33. The accused tested the veracity of evidence of this
witness by eliciting some commission and omission and also
elicited that: "ಚನಸನ.14 ರವರಯ ಸರಲನದ ವಸಯತಗಳನಯನ ನಮಮ ಇಲನಖರಯ ರಸರಪಶನನ
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
26
ಕಪನಟರನ ನಲಲ ಕರರಟಟರಯತನತರರ. ಅದರರ ಅವರಯ ಎಷಯಟ ಗನಟರಗರ ತನದಯ ಕರರಟಟರಯವರರನದಯ
ಹರರಳಲಯ ನನಗರಗ ಆಗಯವವದಲಲ. ಚನಸನ.14 ರವರಯ ತನದಯಕರರಟಟನತಹ ಸರಲನದ ವಸಯತಗಳ
ಮರಲರ ಯನವ ಸರಲಯ ಹನಕದದರರನಬದರ ಬಗರಗ ಈಗ ನನಗರ ಹರರಳಲಯ ಆಗಯವವದಲಲ.
ಸನಮನನನವನಗ ಯನವವದರರ ವಷ ವಸಯತವನಯನ ಸರಯನಗ ಸರಲನಮನಡದರ ಕರರಟಟರರ ಅದಕರಕ ಗನಳ
ಹರರರಗ ದನ ದನಕರಕ ವಷದ ಅನಶ ಕಮಮಯನಗಯತನತ ಹರರರಗಯತತದರ ಎನದರರ ಸನಕಕ ಎಲನಲ ವಷದ
ವಸಯತಗಳನಯನ ಆ ರರತ ಪರಗಣಸಲಯ ಬರಯವವದಲಲ ಎನಬಯದನಗ ಹರರಳರಯತನತರರ. ವಸಯತ ಸನಖರನ-2
ರನದ 5 ಗಳಲಲ ಎಷಯಟ ಪದಮನಣದ ವಷದ ಅನಶ ಇತಯತ ಎನದಯ ಪದಮನಣದ ಬಗರಗ ಹರರಳಲಯ
ಆಗಯವವದಲಲ ಆದರರ ವಷ ವಸಯತ ಇದದ ಬಗರಗ ಮನತದ ಹರರಳಲಯ ಆಗಯತತದರ".
34. Further he has deposed that: " ಆ ಸರಲಯ ಎಫನ.ಎಸನ.ಎಲನ.
ಎನಬಯದನಗಯರ ಮಯದರದ ಒತತರಯತನತರರ. ಎಫನ.ಎಸನ.ಎಲನ. ವರದಯನಯನ ಸರಲನಮನಡ ನಮಮ
ಡರಸನಪನನಚನಸರಕಕನನ ಗರ ನನವವ ಕಳಯಹಸ ಕರರಟಟರಯತರತರವರ ಅಲಲನದ ತನಖನಧಕನರಗರ ಆ ಸರಲನದ
ವರದ ಹರರರಗರಯತತದರ, ಆದರರ ಅದನಯನ ಯನರಯ ತರಗರದಯಕರರನಡಯ ಹರರರದರಯ ಎನಬಯದರ ಬಗರಗ
ಸನಬನಧಪಟಟ ರಜಸಟರನ ನರರರಡ ಹರರಳಬರರಕನಗಯತತದರ". If the above said evidence
is taken into consideration this witness has no personal
knowledge about the seal of said articles and dispatch of the
said articles. At this stage, this Court feels to observe the victim
girls, complainant, the seizure mahazar witnesses not
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
27
supported the case of prosecution, when such being the case, it
is not safe to accept the evidence of this witness to believe
alleged offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
35. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-Soma. N, he
has deposed that he has not seen the accused earlier, he doesn't
know what case registered against her. About 1½ years back
he went to Cubbon Park Police Station at that time the police
obtained his signature-Ex.P1(a). He doesn't know for what
purpose, the police had taken his signature. He know only how
to sign, but he doesn't know to read and write, the police have
not seized any insecticide bottle before him.
36. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-Mohammad
Shafi, he has deposed that he has not seen the accused earlier,
he doesn't know what case registered against her. About 1½
years back he went to Cubbon Park Police Station at that time
the police obtained his signature-Ex.P1(b). He doesn't know for
what purpose the police had taken his signature. He know only
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
28
how to sign, but he doesn't know read and write, the police have
not seized any insecticide bottle before him.
37. The prosecution treated both Pw.1 and Pw.2 as
hostile witnesses and suggested each and every word of Ex.P1
in respect of seizing of MO1 before them at Police
Commissioner's Office, left side of pathway of old Control Room
in front of ladies toilet and obtained their signature, after
conducting Mahazar as per Ex.P1 from 04.00p.m., to 04.15p.m,
for that both witnesses denied the same. Through the evidence
of Pw.1 and Pw.2, the prosecution failed to corroborate seizing
of MO1 before them, beyond all reasonable doubt.
38. By going through the evidence of Pw.3-R. Vijay, he
has deposed that he doesn't know the accused and what case
registered against her, Ex.P2(a) is his signature. Last year he
went to the police station to lodge complaint about loss of his
mobile, at that time the police had taken Ex.P2(a), but he
doesn't know what had written in Ex.P2 and the police have not
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
29
seized any article before him and not made it subjected to P.F.
No.26/2017. Though this witness not supported the process of
conducting Mahazar before him, but the prosecution not tested
his veracity by treating him as hostile witness, non-cross-
examination of this witness by the prosecution, it is absolutely
fatal to the case of prosecution against accused. Further the
prosecution failed to prove seizure of MO1 beyond all
reasonable doubt.
39. By going through the evidence of Pw.15-Siddaraju
M-Head Constable-1632, he has deposed that on 21-02-2017 at
about 12 hours in the noon a strange woman came along with
three female children and requested to allow her to meet Police
Commission, as such he has noted the same in the register and
send her to the crime branch. After half an hour he saw a
crowd near toilet room and came to know the said women and
three children having consumed poison to commit suicide and
also they became upset and vomiting. Immediately they were
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
30
taken to Bowring Hospital for treatment. He has given
statement in that respect before Cubbon Park Police and also
produced extract of register entry as per Ex.P18 and his
signature is Ex.P18(a) and also identified the accused before the
Court.
40. The accused tested his veracity and elicited his
evidence by denial suggestion. At the same time he has
admitted that: "ಆರರರರಪ ತನನ ಮಕಕಳರರನದಗರ ಸಒಪ ಹಳರರ ಕಟಟಡದ ಟನಯನಲನಟನ
ಬಳ ವಷಪನದಶನ ಮನಡದದನಯನ ನನನಯ ಖಯದನದಗ ನರರರಡರಯವವದಲಲ". If the above said
admission taken into consideration, though he has identified
the accused, but at the same time it is not safe to accept that he
has seen consuming of poison by the accused and making her
daughters also to consume the said poison as per the case of
prosecution. Through the evidence of this witness it is not safe
to consider that he is eye-witness.
41. By going through the evidence of Pw.16-Shiva Kumar
K.R.-Head Constable-8538, he has deposed that on 21-02-2017
at about 12 hours in the noon a strange woman came along
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
31
with three female children and requested to allow her to meet
Police Commissioner, as such he has noted the same in the
register book and send her to the crime branch. After half an
hour of the said incident he saw a crowd near toilet room and
came to know the said women and three children having
consumed poison to commit suicide and also they became upset
and vomiting, immediately they were taken to Bowring Hospital
for treatment, the said fact he has given statement and also
produced extract of register entry as per Ex.P18 and his
signature is Ex.P18(a) and also identified the accused before the
court.
42. The accused tested his veracity and elicited his
evidence by denial suggestion. At the same time he has
admitted that: "ಆರರರರಪ ತನನ ಮಕಕಳರರನದಗರ ಸಒಪ ಹಳರರ ಕಟಟಡದ ಟನಯನಲನಟನ
ಬಳ ವಷಪನದಶನ ಮನಡದದನಯನ ನನನಯ ಖಯದನದಗ ನರರರಡರಯವವದಲಲ". If the above said
admission taken into consideration, though he has identified
the accused, but at the same it is not safe to accept that he has
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
32
seen the consuming of poison by the accused and making her
daughters also to consume the said poison as per the case of
prosecution. Through the evidence of this witness it is not safe
to consider that he is eye-witness.
43. By going through the evidence of Pw.19-Shobah N-
P.S.I. she has deposed that on 21-02-2017 the complainant-R.
Suresh came to the station at about 03.30p.m., and lodged
complaint as per Ex.P3, she has verified the same and
registered the case in crime No.49/2017 for the offences
punishable under section 309, 307 of IPC, entered Shara and
signed as per Ex.P3(a). She has prepared FIR as per Ex.P20 and
submitted the same to the Court and higher officer. Here the
complainant-R. Suresh/Pw.5 turned hostile to the case of
prosecution and his definite stand is that he has not lodged any
complaint as per Ex.P3.
44. Further Pw.19 deposed that she went to the spot,
conducted Mahazar as per Ex.P1 at the spot shown by the
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
33
complainant. Here Pw.1 to Pw.3 turned hostile to the case of
prosecution and their definite stand is they came to the police
station for their personal work, at that time the police obtained
their signatures. Further she has deposed that she has recorded
statement of Cw.2, Cw.3, Cw.11 and Cw.12, but they turned
hostile to the case of prosecution and their definite answer is
they have not given any statement as per Ex.P7, Ex.P8 and
Ex.P11. She has also deposed that on 23-02-2017 she has
subjected the articles received from the doctor to P.F.No.
26/2017 in the station by conducting seizure mahazar as per
Ex.P2 in the presence of Vijay and Imran Sheiki and also she
has identified MO1. Here the independent Panch witnesses
turned hostile to the case of prosecution, as such seizing of
MO1 not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable
doubt.
45. She has also deposed that on 25-02-2017, after
obtaining permission from doctor, she has conducted
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
34
counsellings through SJPU Co-ordinator- Susaina Thomas of
the victim girls, but the victim girls clearly deposed that they
have not given any statement as per Ex.P4 to Ex.P6. Further
she has deposed that on 03-03-2017 she has sent articles to the
FSL-Madiwala for chemical examination through Constable
-Lava Kumar and obtained acknowledgement as per Ex.P21.
She has also received case summary on 22-03-2017 from the
doctor as per Ex.P10 to Ex.P12. On 03-04-2017 she has
received discharge summary as per Ex.P13 to Ex.P17 and filed
charge sheet against accused. She has also identified the
accused before the Court. Ex.P22 is the requisition received
from the doctor in respect of sending of sealed articles, Ex.P19
is the FSL report and the Scientific Officer opined presence of
Organo Phosphorus insecticide. She has also recorded
voluntary statement of accused as per Ex.P23. Further she has
deposed that the accused is also accused of robbery case
registered in Crime No.74/2017 of Mahadevapura Police
station.
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
35
46. The accused tested the veracity of the evidence of
this witness and denied each and every word of the evidence
given by her in her chief examination by denial suggestion, for
that he has denied the same. Here the victim girl, complainant,
the grand mother of victim girl and other independent
witnesses, Mahazar and seizure Mahazar witnesses turned
hostile to the case of prosecution and there is inconsistent
evidence of doctors and also police personnels available on
record, as such question of believing the evidence of this
witness doesn't arises and this Court feels to observe that the
evidence of this witness is a formal one.
47. The Oral and documentary evidence placed on
record by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the alleged
offences against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The
defense of the accused and the facts and circumstances of the
case including materials on record discussed above
probabalises the defense of the accused rather than the case of
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
36
the prosecution.
48. In view of aforesaid reasons, I hold that the evidence
of Pw.1 to Pw.19 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to
Ex.P24 and MO1, placed on record in respect of alleged
offences, is insufficient to prove that on 21-02-2017 at about
11.30a.m., the accused having an intention to murder her three
daughters-Cw.2 to Cw.4 taken them to the Police
Commissioner's Office, near ladies toilet of the said office,
forcibly made Cw.2 to Cw.4 to consume poison and she also
consumed the poison for herself with an intention to commit
suicide and thereby committed offences punishable under
Section 307, 309 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
Consequently, I hold Point No.1 and 2 in the "Negative".
49. Point No.3- For the above said reasons and
discussions on Point No.1 and 2, I hold that the accused is
entitled for an order of acquittal. Hence, in the final result, I
proceed to pass the following:
Spl.C.C.No.253/2018
37
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under section 307, 309 read of IPC.
Her bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled.
MO1 is treated as worthless property, office is directed to destroy MO1 after appeal period is over. If an appeal is preferred, after disposal of appeal in accordance with law.
(Computerized to my dictation by the Judgment Writer. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 17 th Day of February 2020.) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
A NN E X U R E LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Pw.1 Soma N. Cw.2 20-07-2018 Pw.2 Mohammad Shafi Cw.3 03-11-2018 Spl.C.C.No.253/2018 38 Pw.3 R. Vijay Cw.5 03-11-2018 Pw.4 Boomika Cw.6 12-12-2018 Pw.5 Suresh Cw.1 12-12-2018 Pw.6 Bindu Cw.7 06-02-2019 Pw.7 Rohana Cw.8 06-02-2019 Pw.8 Yeshoda Cw.9 06-02-2019 Pw.9 Kamala Cw.10 28-02-2019 Pw.10 Ravi Kumar H.G. Cw.11 28-02-2019 Pw.11 Shivalinga Swamy Cw.12 28-02-2019 Pw.12 Dr. Poornima Cw.17 18-03-2019 Pw.13 Dr. Dhanalakshmi K. Cw.18 18-03-2019 Pw.14 Dr. B.S. Nagaraja Cw.19 18-03-2019 Pw.15 Siddaraju M. Cw.16 18-03-2019 Pw.16 Shivakumar K.R. Cw.15 18-03-2019 Pw.17 Susana Thomas Cw.20 02-04-2019 Pw.18 Dr. Vinod Lakkappan Cw.21 26-06-2019 Pw.19 Shobha.N. Cw.23 31-07-2019 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Mahazar Pw.1 20-07-2018 Ex.P 2 Seizure mahazar Pw.3 03-11-2018 Ex.P 3 Complaint Pw.5 12-12-2018 Ex.P 4 Statement of Pw.4 Pw.4 06-02-2019 Spl.C.C.No.253/2018 39 Ex.P 5 Statement of Pw.6 Pw.6 06-02-2019 Ex.P 6 Statement of Pw.7 Pw.7 06-02-2019 Ex.P 7 Statement of Pw.8 Pw.8 06-02-2019 Ex.P 8 Statement of Pw.9 Pw.9 28-02-2019 Ex.P 9 Statement of Pw.10 Pw.10 28-02-2019 Ex.P 10 Statement of Pw.11 Pw.11 28-02-2019 Ex.P 10 Case summary of Rohana Pw.13 18-03-2019 Shree Ex.P 11 Case summary of Pw.13 18-03-2019 Bhumika Ex.P 12 Case summary of Pw.13 18-03-2019 Bindushree Ex.P 13 Admission sheet extract Pw.13 18-03-2019 of Rohana Shree Ex.P 14 Admission sheet extract Pw.13 18-03-2019 of Bhumika Ex.P 15 Admission sheet extract Pw.13 18-03-2019 of Bindushree Ex.P 16 Discharge Summary of Pw.14 18-03-2019 accused Ex.P 17 Admission sheet of Pw.14 18-03-2019 accused Ex.P 18 Visitors register extract Pw.15 18-03-2019 Ex.P 19 FSL report Pw.18 26-06-2019 Ex.P 20 FIR Pw.19 31-07-2019 Ex.P 21 FSL acknowledgment Pw.19 31-07-2019 Ex.P 22 Report of Cw.13 Pw.19 31-07-2019 Spl.C.C.No.253/2018 40 Ex.P 23 Voluntary statement of Pw.19 31-07-2019 accused Ex.P 24 Requisition to Court Pw.19 31-07-2019 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION MO1 Aluminum empty bottle Pw.18 26-06-2019 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS MARKED & MO.S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-
L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE