Bangalore District Court
State By vs Smt.K.S.Rathnamma on 7 October, 2017
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE; BENGALURU CITY (CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
SRI.K.SUBRAMANYA, B.Com., LL.M.
LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 7th day of October 2017.
S.C.No.474/2014
COMPLAINANT: State by
Peenya Police,
Bengaluru.
.Vs.
ACCUSED : 1. Smt.K.S.Rathnamma,
W/o.Manjunath,
30 years.
2. Manjunath K.M.
S/o.Late Marulappa,
30 years.
Both are residents of :
Nagappa Building,
Behind Ashwini Hospital,
Nelagadaranahalli,
Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
Peenya Police, Bengaluru have laid the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 306 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
2 S.C.No.474/20142. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
C.Ws.1 and 2 borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the accused and cleared the loan. On 10.11.2013 at 6-00 p.m., the accused started quarrel with C.Ws.1 and 2 and when their daughter Suhasini came there, they have abused her in filthy language and assaulted on her and ill-treated her. On 13.11.2013 at 6-15 p.m., while Suhasini was returning to her house, on the way the accused abused and used vulgar language and held at her tuft hairs and pulled her in the public place and outrage the modesty. Due to the said insult, on 14.11.2013 at 8-30 a.m., the said Suhasini has committed suicide by hanging by drawing the death note. The accused have instigated and abetted her to commit suicide. Hence, this case.
3. The accused have appeared before the court and they were enlarged on bail. My learned predecessor has framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. The prosecution in proof of its case examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to 18 and M.Os.1 to 5. After closure of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused have denied the incriminating evidence stated against them. The accused have not chosen to adduce any defense evidence.
3 S.C.No.474/20144. The learned counsel for accused has submitted his written arguments and he has also relied upon the following decisions in support of his case.
1. (1994) 1 SCC 73 ;
2. AIR 2009 SC 1808 ;
3. (2010) 8 SCC 628 ;
4. AIR 2011 SC 1238 ;
5. AIR 2014 SC 1782.
5. After hearing the arguments, the points raised for my determination are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 10.11.2013 at 6-00 p.m., while C.Ws.1 and 2 were near their house, the accused started quarrel regarding the amount of Rs.10,000/- borrowed by them, though they have cleared the said amount with interest. Meanwhile, their daughter Suhasini came there and intervened to pacify the quarrel and the accused abused her in filthy language and insulted her in public road and given mental torture. Further, on 13.11.2013 at 6-15 p.m., while Suhasini was coming back to home after attending her work, the accused were restrained her and abused her in filthy language and hold her hair and pulled her in the public and insulted and damaged her reputation and decency of woman. Due to the act of the accused and untolerable torture and assault, Suhasini has committed suicide by strangulation with nylon saree hanged to the hook of the roof and the accused have abetted her to commit suicide and committed an offence punishable under Section 306 r/w. Section 34 of IPC ?
2. What Order ?4 S.C.No.474/2014
6. My findings on the above points are as under :
POINT No.1 - In the Negative, POINT No.2 - As per final order, for the following :
REASONS
7. POINT No.1 : P.W.1 has deposed that she had three children namely Sujatha, Suma and deceased Suhasini. The deceased was working at Garments Factory i.e., Bombay Rayons, Bengaluru, but failed to state the identity of the accused and their residence. The accused assaulted Suhasini holding her hair and demanded for repayment of the loan of Rs.5,000/- with exorbitant interest. Due to the torture and abuse, while returning from working on the way, deceased Suhasini became frustrated and committed suicide with the help of saree to the fan hook in the bed room. She has screamed for help of the neighbours. She has requested to open the door, but the deceased was not opened the door. They have telephoned to the police and on their arrival, the door was opened. They noticed that the body was hanging in the room. They shifted the dead body to Sapthagiri Hospital for post mortem examination. The complaint and signature is identified by this witness. She has also signed to the mahazar while seizure of death note. The photographs and clothes are also identified by this witness.
Since P.W.1 was not subjected to cross examination, her testimony is not tested with due cross examination. Hence, could not be safely reliable.
5 S.C.No.474/20148. P.W.2 received information while he was on duty and when he rushed to the house, the body of Suhasini was shifted to Sapthagiri Hospital. The police has taken the signature at the Police Station. From this witness also, there is no corroboration to the prosecution case, as he has been treated as hostile. The prosecution suggested that the police have drawn the inquest at P.W.1's house and the signature was made in that spot. From this witness, there is no reliable evidence forthcoming. But, in the cross examination, it is admitted that when he was attending the duty, he used to return to the house in the evening itself. He do not know when the police came to the house of P.W.1 and what were the things taken by the police. He has not read the contents of Ex.P.1.
9. P.W.3 has deposed that the police have shown the death note and it is mentioned that the accused Nos.1 and 2 are responsible for her death.
In the cross examination, it is admitted that the police have not given any written notice while drawing mahazar. He do not know the contents of Ex.P.2. It is admitted that he has signed the same at the Police Station.
10. P.W.4-P.S.I., has deposed as to registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1 and forwarding the F.I.R. He has seized the death note in the presence of C.Ws.4 and 5 by drawing the mahazar. Further, he has deputed his staff to trace the accused. The accused were produced by 6 S.C.No.474/2014 his staff and they have been arrested. He has received the F.S.L.Report.
In the cross examination, this witness has not deposed what are the course of events occurred prior to the date of committing suicide by the deceased. The earlier torture and causing harassment and abuse and insult made by the accused to the deceased is not evidenced by any of the independent witnesses, who are present in the public road or within the vicinity of residence of deceased. Even the official witnesses have not properly evidenced nor the Investigating Officer has conducted investigation as to this vital aspect. It is admitted by P.W.4 that there was no earlier complaint lodged regarding the incident of insult and monetary transaction between the family of deceased and accused.
11. P.W.5 has deposed that has conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Suhasini and issued P.M.Report. The cause for death is also mention i.e., the death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. He has sent the clothes and he preserved the organs for Histopathology Examination. The suggestion made by the defense that he has given false report has been denied. Here the death is not disputed and conducting of mahazar is also not in dispute. But, the nature of death and cause for death is under dispute and it should be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
7 S.C.No.474/201412. P.W.6-Father of deceased has deposed in correlation with P.W.1, but the amount borrowed by Suhasini is stated as Rs.2,000/- instead of Rs.5,000/- as deposed by P.W.1. Even he do not know the contents of Death Note and failed to identify the same. This is quite contradictory to the evidence of P.W.1. The inconsistence evidence of interested witnesses will not in any way help the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.
13. P.W.7 has deposed that deceased is her sister and she was working at Branded Garment at Peenya, Bengaluru. She knows borrowing of loan and the quarrel due to demand for repayment. She had received telephone call from P.W.1 and rushed to the house. Her sister was committed suicide. The evidence of this witness is also hearse in nature. This witness came to know the loan transaction through the deceased and also the quarrel made by the accused. The evidence of relative witness is to be scrutinized with proper care and caution. This witness has not stated who are all present while quarreling took place between the deceased and accused on the road as well as holding of hair, pulling her and abuse and causing insult and torture to the deceased. The sole cause for driving the deceased to commit suicide is not clearly forthcoming in this case. Unless, the access and nexus instigation and abetment to commit suicide is proved, it is difficult to hold the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence as to presence of accused in the public street and obstructing the deceased when she was returning from the 8 S.C.No.474/2014 work and the presence of other people, who saw it and pacified the quarrel are not forthcoming in the prosecution evidence.
14. P.W.8 has deposed that he was working as turner at Vijaya Enterprises and he has received information about the death of Suhasini. He has saw the post mortem examination at Sapthagiri Hospital. He came to know that there was quarrel took place between the accused and deceased for the loan amount. This witness also treated as hostile by the prosecution. He has denied the suggestion that the deceased came out of her house and there was abuse and using vulgar words and it was heard by the public are all denied. Even the assault and pulling tuft hairs of the deceased are all denied. This witness denied the statement given as per Ex.P.18. Therefore, there is no corroboration from this witness to the prosecution case in order to prove the guilt. It must be proved that the harassment, ill-treatment and abuse is sufficient to drive her to death by committing suicide. But, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the above said aspects. Hence, I answer the Point No.1 in the Negative.
15. POINT No.2 : My finding on this point is as per the following :
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted for the alleged offence punishable under Section 306 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.9 S.C.No.474/2014
The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1 and 2 stand cancelled, subject to appeal/appeal period. M.Os.1 to 5 being worthless, are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over/subject to appeal.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcript thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of October 2017) ( K.SUBRAMANYA ) LXVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION :
P.W.1 Neelamma
P.W.2 Ravikumar
P.W.3 Thippaiah
P.W.4 Raghavendra
P.W.5 Dr.Yadukul
P.W.6 Kadarappa
P.W.7 Suma
P.W.8 Chandrashekar
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.2 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.2(c) Signature of P.W.4
Exs.P.3 to 6 Photos
Ex.P.7 Inquest Mahazar
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.7(b) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.8 Death Note
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.3
10 S.C.No.474/2014
Ex.P.9 F.I.R.
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.10 Property Form
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.11 Property Form
Ex.P.12 Note Book
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.13 Property Form
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.14 P.M.Report
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.14(b) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.14(c) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.15 F.S.L.Report
Ex.P.16 Sample Seal
Ex.P.17 Requisition sent to FSL
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.18 Statement of P.W.8
3. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS PRODUCED AND GOT MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :
M.O.1 Saree M.O.2 Nighty M.O.3 Chudidar Top M.O.4 White colour slip of deceased M.O.5 Undergarment
4. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR ACCUSED :
- NIL -
( K.SUBRAMANYA ) LXVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.