Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Rudramma on 15 May, 2023
KABC010056762019
IN THE COURT OF THE LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.57)
:PRESENT:
Sri.T.Govindaiah, B.Com., LLB.,
LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 15th Day of May, 2023.
S.C No.275/2019
COMPLAINANT : The State of Karnataka,
By Kumaraswamy Layout
Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs
ACCUSED 1. Rudramma
W/o late Gopal
Aged about 35 years
R/at No.587, 2nd Floor,
8th Cross, Pragathipura
Bengaluru
(By Sri. R.V.R. Advocate)
1 S.C.No.590/2015
Date of offence 29.04.2018
Date of report of offence 30.04.2018
Name of the complainant S.Velu
Date of commencement of
recording of evidence 05.07.2022
Date of closing of evidence 09.03.2023
Offences complained of U/Sec.302 and 201 of IPC.
Opinion of the Judge Accused is acquitted
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri. R.V.R. Advocate
********
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet presented by the Police Inspector, Kumarswamy layout Police station against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.302 and 201 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that: 2 S.C No.275/2019 The accused being the wife of deceased Gopal, that on 29.04.2018 during the night hours within the jurisdiction of Kumarswamy layout police station at Pragathipua village in 8th cross, in house bearing No.587, 2nd floor, the accused tied two hands of her husband Gopal with the piece of panche and she took the piece of saree and surrounded the same to the neck of Gopal and forcibly tied to the neck of Gopal and gave trouble to the breathing and committed the murder of husband Gopal. Thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under Sec.302 and 201 of IPC.
3. The charge sheet was presented before the XLIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and the said court has taken cognizance against accused and committed the case for trial to the court of Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and in turn the Hon'ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru has assigned the case to this court. Accused was in granted 3 S.C No.275/2019 bail. After hearing before charge, charge framed against accused and she pleaded not guilty and claimed to tried.
4. In order to prove the prosecution case, 16 witnesses have got examined as P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 24 and got identified M.Os. 1 to 4.
5. Heard the arguments of both sides.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are :
1. Is the death of deceased Gopal homicidal ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused caused death of Gopal?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally causing disappearance of evidence from the place of occurrence, thereby the accused committed the offence punishable under Sec.201 of IPC?
4. What order?
4 S.C No.275/2019
7. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2: In the Negative.
Point No.3: In the Negative.
Point No.4: As per final order,
for the following:
:REASONS:
8. Point No.1 to 3: These points are taken
together for consideration in order to avoid repetition of facts.
9. The complainant C.W.1 Velu, who is the brother of deceased Gopal is examined as P.W.1. P.W.1 has lodged complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1 and he turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. During the course of cross examination made on behalf of the prosecution, not elicited anything about the case of prosecution. Therefore the evidence of P.W.1 is no way helpful to the case of prosecution. 5 S.C No.275/2019
10. C.W.2 Krishnappa and C.W.3 Subramani are the panchas to the spot and seizure mahazar have been examined as P.W.2 and 3. These two witnesses have admits their signature on Ex.P.2 to 4. But they are turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. During the course of cross examination made on behalf of prosecution, nothing is elicited towards drawing of Ex.P.2 to 4 in their presence. Therefore the evidence of P.W.2 and 3 are not helpful to the case of prosecution.
11. C.W.6 Rangaswamy and C.W.5 Annadorai are the panch witnesses to the inquest mahazar are examined as P.W.4 and 9. these witnesses have admits their signature on Ex.P.5 i.e. inquest mahazar and notice at Ex.P.6. But they are turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. During the course of cross examination made on behalf of prosecution, nothing is elicited towards drawing of inquest mahazar as per 6 S.C No.275/2019 Ex.P.5 in their presence. Therefore the evidence of P.W.4 and 9 are not helpful to the case of prosecution.
12. C.W.9 Dr.Roopak examined as P.W.5. This witness being the medical office, deposed about conducting of postmortem of dead body of Gopal and issuance of PM report as per Ex.P.7 and his signature at Ex.P.7(a). He also deposed about collecting of M.O.1 and send to the investigating officer. The evidence of this witness is formal one.
13. C.W.10 A.T.Krishnan who is the police official examined as P.W.6. This witness deposed about submitting the article before scientific officer and obtaining the FSL report as per Ex.P.8 and his signature at Ex.P.8(a). The evidence of this witness is also formal one.
14. C.W.7 Parashuram who is the brother of deceased Gopal examined as P.W.7. This witness is also not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. 7 S.C No.275/2019
15. C.W.8 Ellumalai who is the eye witness, examined as P.W.8. C.W.13 who is also one of the eye witness examined as P.W.10, C.W.15 Yashodamma who is also one of the eye witness examined as P.W.11, C.W.16 Kokila. G who is he daughter of deceased Gopal and eye witness examined as P.W.12, C.W.17 Devika who is the daughter of deceased Gopal and eye witness examined as P.W.13, C.W.18 Chandana who is also one of the eye witness examined as P.W.14. These witnesses being the eye witnesses to the alleged incident are turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. During the course of cross examination made on behalf of the prosecution, nothing is elicited to connect the accused to the alleged offence.
16. C.W.11 K.N.Ravikumar who is the Assistant Executive Engineer of BBMP examined as P.W.15. This witness states about drawing of sketch of spot as per 8 S.C No.275/2019 Ex.P.18 and 19 and his signature a Ex.P.18(a) and 19(a). The evidence of this witness is also formal one.
17. C.W.20 who is the investigating officer examined as P.W.16. In the evidence of this witness states about registration and investigation of the case. The evidence of this witness is also formal one.
18. Herein this case P.W.1 being the complainant and brother of deceased Gopal turned hostile. P.W.2 and 3 being the witnesses to the spot and seizure mahazar they also turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Further P.W.8, 10 to 14 being the eye witnesses to the alleged incident, they have also turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.
19. From the evidence of the P.Ws.1 to 16 it is clear that P.W.1 being brother of deceased and P.W.2 and 3 are the material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case with regard to the circumstantial evidence or with regard to the spot mahazar Ex.P.2 to 4. 9 S.C No.275/2019 P.W.1 had lodged complaint only on suspicion. The only supporting evidence placed by the prosecution is evidence of P.W.5, the doctor who conducted postmortem and gave opinion with regard to the cause of death and the investigating officer P.W.6 and 16. In view of the hostile evidence of material witnesses and eye witnesses the prosecution has failed to place cogent and corroborative evidence to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Absolutely there is no material evidence to prove that accused murder Gopal by strangulated him with M.O.1 causing murder of Gopal. Though the death of Gopal is homicidal, prosecution has failed to prove the intention of accused commit the alleged offence and therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly point No.1 answered in the affirmative and point No.2 and 3 in the Negative.
20. Point No.4: In view of my findings on points No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following: 10 S.C No.275/2019 ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC.
M.O. 1 to 4 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period.
The bail bonds and surety bonds stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 15th Day of May, 2023) (T.Govindaiah) LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
: ANNEXURE :
1. List of witnesses examined by prosecution.
P.W.1 C.W.1 Velu
P.W.2 C.W.2 Krishnappa
P.W.3 C.W.3 Subramani
P.W.4 C.W.6 Rangaswamy
P.W.5 C.W.9 Dr.Roopak
P.W.6 C.W.10 K.T.Krishnaiah
P.W.7 C.W.7 Parashuram
P.W.8 C.W.8 Elumalaiah
P.W.9 C.W.5 Annadorai
P.W.10 C.W.13 Mahesh
11 S.C No.275/2019
P.W.11 C.W.15 Yashodamma
P.W.12 C.W.16 Kokila G
P.W.13 C.W.17 Devika
P.W.14 C.W.18 Chandan
P.W.15 C.W.11 K.N.Ravikumar
P.W.16 C.W.20 V.M.Guruprasad
2. List of witnesses examined by defence.
Nil [
3. List of documents marked by prosecution.
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.2 Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.2(c) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.2(d) Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.3 Notice
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.3(c) Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.4 Mahazar
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.4(b) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.4(c) Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.5 Inquest mahazar
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.5(b) Signature of P.W.9
Ex.P.5(c) Signature of P.W.11
Ex.P.6 Notice
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.6(b) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.6(c) Signature of P.W.16
12 S.C No.275/2019
Ex.P.7 PM Report
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.7(b) Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.8 Report
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.8(b) Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.9 Acknowledgment letter
Ex.P.10 Acknowledgment letter
Ex.P.11 Statement of P.W.7
Ex.P.12 Statement of P.W.8
Ex.P.13 Statement of P.W.10
Ex.P.14 Statement of P.W.11
Ex.P.15 Statement of P.W.12
Ex.P.16 Statement of P.W.13
Ex.P.17 Statement of P.W.14
Ex.P.18 Letter
Ex.P.18(a) Signature of P.W.15
Ex.P.18(b) Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.19 Sketch
Ex.P.19(a) Signature of P.W.15
Ex.P.20 FIR
Ex.P.21 Voluntary statement of accused
Ex.P.21(a) Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.22 Notice
Ex.P.22(a) Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.23 Acknowledgment
Ex.P.23(a) Signature of P.W.16
Ex.P.24 FSL report
4. List of documents by defence.
Nil
5. List of material objects marked by prosecution.
M.O.1 Piece of saree
13 S.C No.275/2019
M.O.1(a) Signature of P.W.15
M.O.1(b) Signature of P.W.16
M.O.2 White panche
M.O.3 Black colour saree
M.O.4 Red colour bag
M.O.2(a) to 4(a) Signature of P.W.16 LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
14 S.C No.275/2019Order pronounced in open Court.
(Vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of 15 S.C No.275/2019 Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC.
M.O. 1 to 4 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period.
The bail bonds and surety bonds stands cancelled.
LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
16 S.C No.275/2019