Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mohan Raj on 30 November, 2021
IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 30 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
Smt. SANDHYA S., M.A., LL.B. (spl.)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C.No.751/2015
Complainant The State of Karnataka
Mahalakshmi Layout
P S, Bengaluru.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
-V/s-
Accused Mohan Raj,
S/o Yathiraj,
Aged about 31 years
R/at No.16, 24th
Mainroad, Jackpot
Lane, J.C.Nagar,
Kurubarahalli,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.G.Jairaj)
Date of offence 22.03.2015
Date of report of offence 22.03.2015
2 S.C.No.751/2015
Name of the Smt. Saraswathi
complainant
Date of commencement 05.04.2018
of recording of evidence
Date of closing of 11.08.2021
evidence
Offences complained of Sec.498A, 306 of
Indian Penal Code
Opinion of the Judge Accused not found
guilty
State represented by Learned Public
Prosecutor
Accused defended by By Sri.G.Jairaj,
Advocate.
*********
JU DG MEN T This case is the result of charge sheet filed by the complainant Police, Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station against accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that the complainant C.W.1 Smt. Saraswathi, who is mother of the deceased/Smt.Anjali, registered the 3 S.C.No.751/2015 case against accused as per Cr.No.103/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed against accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 of Indian Penal Code. Further it is alleged that the deceased Anjali was given in marriage to accused on 09.11.2011 and she was staying along with accused, in Mahalakshmi Layout Police station jurisdiction. That accused used to come home in drunken state and abuse the deceased, hit her with hands and was harassing her mentally and physically. That on 21.03.2015 at 10.30p.m accused had assaulted the deceased asking her to give money for alcohol. Such being the case without bearing ill-treatment and harassment by accused on 22.03.2015 at 08.00 a.m to 10.30 a.m in the house of accused, deceased committed suicide by 4 S.C.No.751/2015 tying a veil to iron angle attached to the ceiling and hanged herself. Hence, accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide by subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty instigating her to die and thereby accused committed the offence as alleged, is the case of the prosecution.
3. As discussed herein above, on the complaint of C.W.1 Saraswathi, mother of the deceased, the complainant police registered this case and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused before the learned Magistrate. At the initial stage accused was arrested and sent to J.C and later this court has granted bail and again on 27.10.2017 accused was arrested on NBW and sent to J.C and until today he is in Judicial Custody.
4. Accused was produced from J.C. and is represented through his counsel before the learned 5 S.C.No.751/2015 Magistrate. The learned Magistrate furnished copy of charge sheet to accused and hence, the provision of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. was complied with. As the offences charge sheeted against accused is exclusively triable by sessions court, the learned Magistrate acting under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. has committed the case to Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru, and later Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru, has sent this case to this Court for trial and hence, the matter is taken up before this Court accordingly for further proceedings. Accused is in J.C. and later was produced before this court.
5. My predecessor had framed charge against accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 of Indian Penal Code on 09.11.2015, to 6 S.C.No.751/2015 which accused has pleaded not guilty and thereby he has claimed to be tried for the said offences.
6. In support of the case of prosecution out of the 18 witness cited in the charge sheet, 5 witnesses are examined as P.W.1 to P.W.5. The prosecution has produced 13 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and 3 Material Objects, which are marked as M.O.1 to M.O.3. After closing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court has recorded the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which accused has denied the incriminating materials forthcoming against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as false. Further accused has not chosen to submit any defense evidence nor produced any document on his behalf.
7 S.C.No.751/2015
7. Perused all the oral and documentary evidence on record. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that after deceased Anjali was given in marriage to accused on 09.11.2011 and she was staying along with accused, in Mahalakshmi Layout Police station jurisdiction, accused used to come home in drunken state and abuse the deceased, hit her with hands and was harassing her mentally and physically and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable u/ sec. 498A of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 21.03.2015 at 10.30 p.m accused had assaulted the deceased asking her to give money for alcohol and without bearing ill- treatment and harassment by accused on 22.03.2015 at 08.00 a.m to 10.30 a.m in the house of accused, deceased committed suicide by tying a veil to iron angle attached to the ceiling and hanged herself and thereby accused has committed the offense punishable u/section 306 of IPC?
3. What order?8 S.C.No.751/2015
8. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and on considering all the oral and documentary evidence on record, my findings on the above points are as hereunder:
Point No.1: In the negative
Point No.2: In the negative
Point No.3: As per final order
for the following:
:R E A S O N S:
9. Points No.1 and 2: Both these points are taken up for consideration together for convenience and also for avoiding repetition of discussion on the facts of the case and also regarding point of law. As per the canon of criminal jurisprudence of our nation, prosecution has to bring home the alleged guilt of accused with production of cogent and satisfactory evidence. As stated herein above, it is not in dispute that the complainant C.W.1.Saraswati, is the mother 9 S.C.No.751/2015 of the deceased and accused is the husband of deceased.
10. The offence charged against accused is punishable under Section 498A, 306 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, unless the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that when deceased was residing with accused, he has given harassment both mental and physical to the deceased and instigated her to die and without bearing with such ill-treatment by accused, the deceased committed suicide by tying a saree to the ceiling fan, no case can be made out against accused for the offences charged. In this background, the evidence forthcoming from the prosecution should be considered for proving the offences charged against accused.
11. Heard the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor, that this case is pertaining to offences 10 S.C.No.751/2015 498A, 306 of I.P.C. Further that in all, 5 witness have been examined, 13 exhibits marked and 3 material objects has been marked. Thus accused has to be convicted for the offenses charged is the argument of the Learned Public Prosecutor.
12. Heard the argument of the defence counsel, Sri.G.Jairaj, Advocate, who has vehemently argued stating that the deposition does not bring in ambit of Section 498A, 306 of I.P.C. Hence, accused be acquitted for the said offences is the argument of the defense counsel.
13. As stated herein above, the prosecution was set into motion against accused on the complaint of C.W.1 Saraswati, who is mother of the deceased Anjali, registered the case against accused as per Cr.No.103/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 of Indian Penal Code. After 11 S.C.No.751/2015 completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused for the offence punishable under/sec 498A, 306 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide by subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty instigating her to die and thereby accused committed the offence as alleged is the case of the prosecution.
14. On going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, it reveals that P.W.1 is one by name Saraswathi, who is the mother of the deceased. She deposed that she has five children and Anjali is her youngest daughter who had studied until 5th standard. Further deposed that accused is husband of Anjali, who was given in marriage to accused 6-7 years ago. Further deposed that accused took her to Kurubarahalli after the marriage. That accused was not going to work and would come in 12 S.C.No.751/2015 drunken state and fight with his wife. That the witness had consoled her daughter whenever she came home. Further deposed that for 2-3 times she had consoled and before the death of her daughter accused had assaulted her daughter around 5-6 times. Further deposed that on the date of death of her daughter, accused had picked up quarrel and assaulted her with pipe on the neck and body and she fell down. Further deposed that accused had admitted her daughter to the hospital and she had sustained injuries on the body and that accused is responsible for her death. Further deposed that she gave complaint which is marked as Ex.P.1 and witness signature at Ex.P.1(a). Further deposed that when police came to the spot she had signed the mahazar, which is marked as Ex.P.2 and witness signature at Ex.P.2(a). The marriage invitation is marked as Ex.P.3. 13 S.C.No.751/2015 Further deposed that police shifted the dead body to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital and Thasildaar came and did the inquest and took her statement along with statements of her husband and son. Her statement is marked at Ex.P4 and witness signature at Ex.P.4(a). Further deposed that accused is responsible for the death of her daughter.
15. During the cross-examination of P.W.1 she deposed that she does not know to read, write and speak english language. Further deposed that accused was working as Coolie and would go to work whenever there would be work otherwise stay at home. Further admitted that accused was not getting work and had shortage of money for which he made loan. Further admitted that there was misunderstanding between the couple as the money was not sufficient and there was no other problem. Further admitted that her 14 S.C.No.751/2015 daughter was clever and accused was dumb. Further deposed that she knows that whenever accused came drunk, her daughter would put him out of the house. Further admitted that her another daughter by name 'Alli' was residing beside house of accused. Further admitted that whenever her daughter would put accused out of the house, she would go and console them. Further deposed that after deceased hanged herself, accused and deceased sister had admitted her to the hospital. Further admitted that she has not mentioned in the complaint that:
" That accused was not going to work and would come in drunken state and fight with his wife. That the witness had consoled her daughter whenever she came home. Further deposed that for 2-3 times he had consoled and before the death of her daughter accused had assaulted her daughter around 5-6 times. Further deposed that on the date of death of her daughter accused had picked up quarrel and assaulted her with pipe on the neck 15 S.C.No.751/2015 and body and she fell down. Further deposed that accused had admitted her daughter to the hospital and she had sustained injuries on the body and that accused is responsible for her death."
Further deposed that she knows that on the date of death of her daughter, money lenders had come to the house and scolded her daughter and due to this reason deceased has hanged herself. This witness denied other suggestions put to her as false.
16. Further material witnesses in this case are P.W.2 and 3. Among them P.W.2 is C.W.7, one by name Balan, who is the father of the deceased and he too deposed in the same manner as his wife, about the marriage of deceased with accused. Further deposed that the couple stayed happily for one year and later accused used to drink and had made loan, for which he would fight with his wife. Further deposed that the money lenders came near the house and scolded his 16 S.C.No.751/2015 daughter and that he had helped his daughter as much as he could. Further deposed that he used to go once in a week to the house of the deceased and she used to cry and witness used to console her. That for 6 months she stayed in the house of witness and later went to the house of accused. Further deposed that accused used to frequently quarrel with his wife and was addicted to alcohol. Further deposed that at the end, without bearing the harassment of accused and further on that day too, accused came drunk and abused her, for which she later committed suicide at 10.30 a.m. That later he went to M.S.Ramaiah hospital and in front of Thasildaar he gave his statement which is at Ex.P.5 and witness signature at Ex.P.5(a). That accused is responsible for the death of his daughter.
17 S.C.No.751/2015
17. During the cross-examination he deposed that accused was working as Coolie and would go to work whenever there would be work otherwise stay at home. Further admitted that accused was not getting work and had shortage of money for which he made loan. Further admitted that there was misunderstanding between the couple as the money was not sufficient and there was no other problem. Further admitted that couple had two children. Further admitted that his daughter was clever and accused was dumb. Further deposed that he knows that whenever accused came drunk, his daughter would put him out of the house. Further admitted that his another daughter by name 'Alli' was residing beside house of accused. Further admitted that whenever his daughter would put accused out of the house, he would go and console them. Further admitted that his daughter came to his house and 18 S.C.No.751/2015 stayed for 6 months stating that until the loan is repaid she will not go back. Further deposed that nor he or his wife has seen accused giving harassment. This witness denied other suggestions put to him by the counsel for accused as false.
18. Another material witness is P.W.3 is C.W.8, one by name Armugam, who is the son of the complainant and P.W.2, he too deposed in the same way as his parents about the marriage of deceased with accused. Further deposed that accused was having drinking habit and used to fight with his wife. That he had made loan and the money lenders used to come home and scold the deceased. That his father had helped the deceased and consoled the couple. That accused used to tell her go and die. That on 22.3.2015 at about 10.30 a.m, accused had called him on phone and informed that deceased was admitted in the hospital. 19 S.C.No.751/2015 Further deposed that on 21.3.2015 accused came home drunk and picked up quarrel and also on the next day at
8.a.m, he came home drunk and told her to go and die. Further deposed that after accused went out, his sister committed suicide. Further deposed that Thasildaar took his statement which is at Ex.P.6 and signature of witness is at Ex.P.6(a). That accused is responsible for the death of his sister is deposed by this witness.
19. During the cross-examination of P.W.3, he deposed that accused was working a coolie and would go to work whenever there would be work otherwise stay at home. Further admitted that accused had two sons and that accused did not have continuous work and had made loan in order to up-bring his children. Further admitted that there were fights between the couple for the reason of loan. Further admitted that before 10 to 15 days of death of deceased, accused had 20 S.C.No.751/2015 left his hair for Dharmastala as he had a prayer/harake. Further admitted that due to the prayer/harake, accused was not drinking in those days. Further admitted that accused had made Rs.2,000/- loan before 2 days of death of deceased. Further admitted that he has not seen accused harassing the deceased. Further admitted that apart from loan due to income of accused, otherwise all was well between the couple. Further deposed that he himself has written the Ex.P.1 in his own handwriting. Further admitted that in the complaint he has not written about go and die. Further this witness has denied other suggestions put to him as false.
20. Official and police witness in this case are P.W.4 and 5. Among them P.W.4 is C.W.14, one by name Gopalaswamy, who is the Thasildaar. He deposed that on 21.3.2015 he got the requisition from concerned 21 S.C.No.751/2015 police station to conduct inquest. That on the same day he went to M.S.Ramaiah hospital and called C.W4 to 6 as panchas and issued notice to them. Further deposed that mother and brother of the deceased were present and he came to know that due to the harassment and abatement given by accused, the deceased committed suicide. The statement of mother and brothers of deceased are marked as Ex.P.4 to 6. Further inquest is marked as Ex.P.7 and witness signature at Ex.P.7(a). The notice issued to panchas is at Ex.P.8. This witness was not cross examined by the counsel for accused.
21. Police witness is P.W.5, who is C.W.18 one by name Girish.A.K. who is the Police Inspector and Investigating Officer in this case. He deposed that on 22.03.2015 C.W.1 came to the police station and gave complaint and on the basis of which crime No.103/2015, F.I.R was registered. The complaint is at Ex.P.1 and 22 S.C.No.751/2015 witness signature at Ex.P.1(b). F.I.R is at Ex.P.11 and witness signature at Ex.P.11(b). Further deposed that on 22.03.2015, he received death memo from Christine hospital which is at Ex.P.9 and witness signature at Ex.P.9(a). That the body was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah hospital later. Further deposed that he went to the spot and in front of C.W.2 and 3, panchanama was prepared from 4.15 to 5.30 p.m. Further deposed that rough sketch was prepared. Panchanama is at Ex.P.2 and witness signature at Ex.P.2(b). Rough sketch is at Ex.P.12 and witness signature at Ex.P.12(a). Further deposed that C.W.2,3,10 and 11 have given their statements before him at the spot. Further deposed that on 23.03.2015 he gave requisition to Thasildaar to do Inquest. That postmortem report is at Ex.P.10 and witness signature at Ex.P.10(a). Further deposed on 23.03.2015, C.W.16 and 17 were deputed to produced 23 S.C.No.751/2015 accused and on the same at 6.30p.m, accused was produced before him and report was filed in that behalf. The said report is at Ex.P.13 and witness signature is at Ex.P.13(a). Further deposed that he took the statements of C.W.16 and 17, after recording voluntary statement of accused he was produced before the learned Magistrate. Further deposed that the complainant has produced marriage invitation which is at Ex.P.3. That on 24.03.2015 Thasildaar has given the inquest and on 25.03.2015 the photos of the deceased were inserted in the case file. On 21.05.2015 C.W.15 brought the clothes of the deceased which are marked as M.O.1 to 3, which were inserted in P.F.No.72/2015. Further deposed that after completion of the investigation he filed charge-sheet against accused. Further deposed that P.W.1 has given statement as per Ex.P.4, P.W.2 has given statement as per Ex.P.5 and P.W.3 has given statement as per Ex.P.6 24 S.C.No.751/2015 to him. This witness identified accused through V.C who is in J.C. During the cross-examination of P.W.5 he has denied all the suggestions put to him as false.
22. On considering the entire papers on record and the evidence adduced by all the witness, it is relevant to note that P.W1, who is the complainant, in the complaint which is at Ex.P.1, has mentioned;
" My daughter was hanging due to the harassment of my son-in-law. My son-in-law is the reason for her death."
Further that during the evidence, P.W.1 has deposed :
"ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄĪÀ ¢£ÀªÀÇ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß ºÉAqÀw eÉÆvÉ dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁr ¥ÉÊ¥ï¤AzÀ PÀÄwÛUÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄïÉ, ªÉÄʪÉÄïɯÁè ºÉÆqÉzÁUÀ PÀĹzÀÄ ©zÀݼÀÄ. DgÉÆæ ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ ¸ÉÃj¹zÀ£ÀÄ.
"ನನಗ ಆಆಗಗ ಬಷ ಓದಲಲ, ಬರಯಲಲ ಮತಲತ ಮತನಡಲಲ ಬರಲವದಲಗ. ಆರರರಪ ಗರ ಕಲಸ ಮಡಕರಆಡಲ ಇರಲವ ಕರಣಕಕ, ಕಲಸಕಕ ಕರದಗ ಹರರಗಲತತನ ಮತಲತ ಕಲಸ ಇಲಗದರ ಇರಲವಗ ಮನಯಲಲ ಇರಲತತದದ. ಆರರರಪಗ ಕಲಸ ಸಗಲತತರಲಲಗ ಮತಲತ ಹಣದ ಕರರತ ಇದಲ ದ ದಕಕ ಸಸಲಲ ಸಲ ಮಡಕರಆಡದದ ಎಆದರ ಸರ. ಆರರರಪ ಮತಲತ ಮಮತ ಅಆಜಲ ಇವರಬಬರ ನಡಲವ ಸಆಸರಕಕ ಹಣ ಸಕಗಲತಲಗ ಅಆತ ತರಆದರ ಇತಲತ ಮತಲತ ಬರರ ಯವ ವಷಯಕಲ ಕ ತರಆದರ ಇಲಗ ಎಆದರ ಸರ".25 S.C.No.751/2015
"ಆರರರಪ ಮತಲತ ಮಮತಳಗ ಎರಡಲ ಗಆಡಲ ಮಕಕಳಲ ಇದದರಲ ಎಆದರ ಸರ. ನನನ ಮಗಳಲ ಜಣ ಮತಲತ ಆರರರಪ ದಡಡ ಎಆದಲ ಹರಳದರ ಸರ. ಆರರರಪಯಲ ಕಲಡದಲ ಬಆದಗ ಮಮತಳಲ ಆರರರಪಯನಲ ನ ಮನಯಆದ ಹರರಕಕ ಹಕಲತತದದಳಲ ಎಆದರ ನನಗ ಗರತಲತ. ನನನ ಇನರಆದಲ ಮಗಳಲ ಮಮತಳ ಅಕಕ " ಅಲ " ಎಆದಲ ಹಸರಲ ಆಕ ಆರರರಪಯ ಮನ ಪಕಕ ಇದದಳಲ ಎಆದರ ಸರ.
ಆರರರಪಯನಲ ನ ಹರರಗಡ ಹಕದರ ನನನ ಹರಯ ಮಗಳಲ ಅಥವ ನನಲ ಮಮತ ಅಆಜಲಗ ಸಮಧನ ಮಡ ಆರರರಪಯನಲ ನ ಮನ ಓಳಗ ಬಡಲವಆತ ಹರಳ ಬರಲತತದ ಎಆದರ ಸರ".
23. On considering witness P.W.1, who is the complainant and mother of the deceased, she has taken different stands in the case. Witness deposing that accused was not going to work and would come in drunken state and fight with his wife. Further deposing that for 2-3 times she had consoled and before the death of her daughter accused had assaulted her daughter around 5-6 times. Further deposing that on the date of death of her daughter, accused had picked up quarrel and assaulted her with pipe on the neck and body and she fell down . 26 S.C.No.751/2015 Further deposing that accused had admitted her daughter to the hospital and she had sustained injuries on the body and that accused is responsible for her death. Further during cross-examination of P.W.1 she deposed that she does not know to read, write and speak English language. Further deposing that accused was working as Coolie and would go to work whenever there would be work otherwise stay at home. Further admitting that accused was not getting work and had shortage of money for which he made loan. Further admitting that there was misunderstanding between the couple as the money was not sufficient and there was no other problem. Further admitting that her daughter was clever and accused was dumb. Further deposing that after deceased hanged herself, accused and deceased sister had admitted her to the hospital. Further 27 S.C.No.751/2015 deposing that she knows that on the date of death of her daughter, money lenders had come to the house and scolded her daughter and due to this reason deceased has hanged herself. Further P.W.2 deposing that the money lenders came near the house and scolded his daughter and that he had helped his daughter as much as he could. That for 6 months she stayed in the house of witness and later went to the house of accused. During the cross-examination he deposing that accused was working as Coolie and would go to work whenever there would be work otherwise stay at home. Further admitting that accused was not getting work and had shortage of money for which he made loan. Further admitting that there was misunderstanding between the couple as the money was not sufficient and there was no other problem. Further admitting that his daughter was 28 S.C.No.751/2015 clever and accused was dumb. Further admitting that his daughter came to his house and stayed for 6 months stating that until the loan is repaid she will not go back. Further deposing that nor he or his wife has seen accused giving harassment. Further P.W.3 deposing that he had made loan and the money lenders used to come home and scold the deceased. During the cross-examination of P.W.3, admitting that there were fights between the couple for the reason of loan. Further admitting that before 10 to 15 days of death of deceased, accused had left his hair for Dharmastala as he had a prayer/harake. Further admitting that due to the prayer/harake, accused was not drinking in those days. Further admitting that accused had made Rs.2,000/- loan before 2 days of death of deceased. Further admitting that he has not seen accused harassing the deceased. Further 29 S.C.No.751/2015 admitting that apart from loan due to income of accused, otherwise all was well between the couple . Further admitting that in the complaint he has not written about go and die. All this raises doubt on the case of the prosecution and it cannot be said that the case of the prosecution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Further P.W.1 has taken different stands in this case. Further there are no documents about the monetary transaction between accused and the deceased to support the case of the prosecution. The men's rea for driving the deceased to commit suicide has to be established by the evidence of the material witness and corroborated. Hence, the evidence of this witness has to be corroborated with the evidence of the other material witness to prove the charges framed against accused and the abatement of accused has to be proved to establish the case of the prosecution. It can be noted that, in the 30 S.C.No.751/2015 complaint Ex.P.1, the complainant has mentioned that there were frequent quarrels in between the deceased and accused, and many panchayath were held to console the matter, further that accused had taken loan, but no independent witness is examined by the prosecution to adduce the same in the evidence. On the contrary P.W.1, deposed that she does not know to read and write english and the complaint is in English language. It is evident to note that the panchanama Dt. 22-03-2015 at Ex.P.2 is not proved. The inquest report dt.21.03.2015 which is at Ex.P.7, in Column no.12 it is mentioned that : 'does not seen like died out of harassment', as mentioned by the thasildaar, creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. Further P.W.4 has not deposed anything much incriminating against the accused.
24. In this case, out of 18 witnesses, C.W.2 to 6, 9 to 13 and 15 to 17 are given up by the prosecution. 31 S.C.No.751/2015 Further the say of the witnesses has to be corroborated to the evidence adduced by other witness. On going through Ex.P.10 which is the postmortem report, wherein, it is clear that except the ligature mark there are no other wounds or injuries on the body. The opinion of the doctor as to the cause of death is "death was due to Asphyxia as a result of hanging" is mentioned in the postmortem report. Further in the Inquest report which is at Ex.P.7, also it is mentioned that only the ligature mark is seen on the body of the deceased. Further P.W.1 stating that on that day deceased was beaten with pipe by accused, has to be ruled out, as nothing as such is mentioned in the inquest and postmortem report. The fact that accused made loan, is not supported by any documentary evidence, which would support and shows that there was any type of monetary transaction. Further family 32 S.C.No.751/2015 members of deceased deposing that on that day money lenders had come and fought with deceased also creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. It cannot be told that accused has committed the offence as charged. Here in this case, the prosecution was not successful to establish the charges framed against accused. The material witness P.W.2 and P.W.3 are family members and no independent witness is examined by the prosecution. The ingredients of section 498A, 306 of I.P.C is not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
25. Further, on considering the evidence of all the witness on record, it is relevant to note that P.W.4 and 5, are official witness and police witness. They have supported the case of the prosecution and thoroughly been cross-examined by the defense counsel. The evidence of public servants cannot be 33 S.C.No.751/2015 disbelieved that they are interested in the success of prosecution case. But the various discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant makes it doubtful to believe the version of the prosecution in toto. As deposed the I.O., I except the evidence of the police witness. But only on the evidence of the official witnesses, P.W.5, the guilt of accused cannot be concluded. It is the concern for today's world that offences against women has to be taken serious note of. But when the prosecution fails to raise the curtains of doubt, no reliance can be placed on the witnesses, to prove the offense against accused. Therefore, on considering the entire evidence and papers on record, there is absolutely no material against accused to prove that accused has committed the offence as charged. Thus it is clear that P.W.1, who is mother of the deceased, only suspected about 34 S.C.No.751/2015 accused that the deceased would have committed suicide due to ill-treatment by accused. Therefore, on considering the entire evidence and papers on record, there is absolutely no material against accused to prove that accused subjected the deceased to any kind of ill-treatment and harassment and thereby due to any such ill-treatment and the harassment, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, the question of accused abetting the deceased to commit suicide does not arise, without the support of any evidence of independent witnesses, the evidence of P.W.2 and 3 does not merit consideration as they have not deposed anything to the effect that their statement in the inquest, which could be substantiated, hence, there is absolutely no material forthcoming in the evidence of P.W.2 and 3 to prove the inquest which is at Ex.P.7 and it cannot said that prosecution has proved the 35 S.C.No.751/2015 case beyond all reasonable doubt. More over the panchanama is at Ex.P.2, no pancha have been examined by the prosecution side creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. The relatives of the deceased have given their evidence against the prosecution and in turn supported accused to get the benefit of doubt. Thus, the witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have not supported in toto the case of the prosecution, which raises doubt on the entire case of the prosecution.
26. Hence, from the discussion made herein above, there are no independent witnesses to the case of prosecution. The inquest panchanama at Ex.P.7 and the spot mahazar at Ex.P.2 are not proved by the prosecution. Only on the basis of evidence of I.O/P.W.5, no case can be made out against accused for the offence charged. Therefore, doubt arises 36 S.C.No.751/2015 regarding the case as alleged against accused. It is well settled principle of law that accused are entitled to the benefit of such doubt. Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that accused subjected the deceased to any physical and mental harassment and treated her with cruelty and that accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove point No.1 and 2, therefore, the point No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
27. Point No.3: From the discussion made herein above, it is clear that all accused deserves to be acquitted of the offence charged against him in this case. In the result, therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
O RDE R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is hereby acquitted of the offences 37 S.C.No.751/2015 punishable under Section 498A, 306 of Indian Penal Code.
The concerned jail authorities are hereby directed to release accused, if he is not required in any other case.
M.O.1 to 3 being worthless, they are hereby ordered to be destroyed, after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 30th day of November, 2021) (Smt. SANDHYA S.) LXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 72).
ANNEXURE I. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
PW.1 Saraswathi
PW.2 Balan
PW.3 Armugam
P.W.4 Gopalaswamy
P.W.5 Girish A.K
38 S.C.No.751/2015
II. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of
Accused:
-NIL-
III. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of witness
Ex.P.2 Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of witness
Ex.P.3 Marriage Invitation
Ex.P4 to P6 Statements
Ex.P.4(a) to Signature of
P6(a) witnesses
Ex.P.7 Inquest
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of the
witness
Ex.P.8 Notice
Ex.P.9 Intimation of Medico
Legal Case
Ex.P.10 Postmortem Report
Ex.P.11 FIR
Ex.P.12 Rough Sketch
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of witness
Ex.P.13 Requisition
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of the
witness
39 S.C.No.751/2015
IV. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:
-NIL-
V. List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:
M.O.1 Rose color Saree pieces
M.O.2 White color half sleeve shirt
M.O.3 White color Bra
(Smt. SANDHYA S.)
LXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 72)