Bangalore District Court
(By The Learned Public Prosecutor) vs No.1-Mounesh @ Manappa Was Held On ... on 18 May, 2020
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF MAY, 2020
PRESENT:
Sri. E. RAJEEVA GOWDA, L.L.M.
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C. No.692/2016
BETWEEN
State by Gangammagudi PS.,
Bangalore. .... COMPLAINANT
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
AND
Mr.Mounesh @ Manappa, s/0 Mariyappa,
a/a 26years, r/a Watchman shed of
Somashekhar, 10th cross, Naidu Layout,
Kuvempu Nagar, Bangalore.
Also resides at"
Naragoli gram,
Jevargi Talluk, Gulbarga ....ACCUSED
Mallikarjun,r/a Watchman shed of
Somashekhar, 10th cross, Naidu Layout,
Kuvempu Nagar, Bangalore. ...SPITUP
(By Sri GSS, Advocate)
*****
2 S.C.No.692/2016
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Gangammagudi Ps., Bangalore, has submitted charge sheet against the accused for an offences punishable U/s.306 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief story of the prosecution are as under:
The marriage of deceased-Smt.Bheemabai and accused No.1-Mounesh @ Manappa was held on 06.04.2012 at Narabali, Jevargi Talluk, Gulbarga district. After marriage both have started to reside in the native place of accused for a while and thereafter due to livelihood came to Bangalore. The deceased and her husband accused No.1 and accused No.2 started to reside in Bangalore in a newly constructing house shed situated at 10th cross, Naidu Layout, Kuvempu Nagar as they were doing coolie in the newly constructing house. They started to reside in the said shed fifteen days back to the date of incident. Such being the case since six months to the date 20.11.2015, the accused No.1 quarreling with deceased for petty reasons by abusing and assaulting and also abetting her to 3 S.C.No.692/2016 die since she has not given birth to any child. Hence, on 18.11.2015 at 9.30p.m due to continuous torture of accused, when the accused No.1 and 2 were in the shed, the deceased locked the latch from outside and set flame by pouring kerosene by herself. Due to sever burn injuries, the deceased was taken to the Abbigere hospital and also to the Aveksha Hospital, where first Aid was given. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to Victoria Hospital. But the deceased was died on 19.11.2015 at 7.30a.m due to burn injuries and thereby the accused has committed the offenses alleged against him.
3. The FIR was registered against accused No.1 and his brother accused No.2-Mallikarjun U/s 306 of IPC. At the time of filing charg sheet the name of accused No.2 was left out by the IO as no evidence is present against him.
4.The concerned police have submitted charge sheet before the jurisdictional VIII Addl., CMM., Bangalore. The 4 S.C.No.692/2016 learned Magistrate has took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to the Sessions Court by complying Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. after furnishing charge sheet copy to the accused. The same was numbered as SC No.692/2016.
5.The charge was framed against the accused for the offences as alleged against him. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
6.The prosecution has examined eleven witnesses as PW.1 to PW.11 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P16. The medical reports and postmortem reports have been marked at EX.P9 to P11. On consent of accused counsel the inquest mahazar is marked at Ex.P4 and postmortem report, MLC, Hospital registrar extract have been marked at EX.P4, P9 to P11 respectively, as per order dated 09.07.2019. Hence, learned PP has given up the witnesses CW5, CW6, CW14, CW16 to 20. The witnesses CW4 reported as dead. The learned PP has given up the evidence of CW14 in view of evidence of PW9.
5 S.C.No.692/2016
7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, this Court has recorded the statement of accused as provided U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has denied incriminating evidence present against him, and not chosen to lead defense evidence nor submitted anything to Court. The accused has complied Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.
8. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials on record.
9. The following points that arises for consideration of this court:
1. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused being husband, harassed his wife i.e.,deceased-Smt.Bheemabai and on 18.11.2015 at 9.30p.m due to continuous torture of accused since she has not given birth to any child and abetted her to die, the deceased locked the latch from inside and set flame by pouring kerosene by herself and due to sever burn injuries the 6 S.C.No.692/2016 deceased was shifted to Victoria Hospital but due to failure of treatment deceased was died on 19.11.2015 at 7.30a.m, and thereby accused No.1 has committed the offence punishable U/s.306 of IPC?
2. What order?
10.This Court 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
11. The accused No.1 Mounesh and deceased-Smt. Bhimabai were residing at Naravali Village, after their marriage held on 06.04.2012. Due to lively hood they came to Bangalore and doing coolie. The deceased, her husband accused No.1 and accused No.2-brother of accused 1 i.e., accused No.2-Mallikarjun were residing together and doing coolie. Such being the case it is the allegation against the accused i.e., husband of the deceased that he has given torture for a reason of infertility of deceased and there by 7 S.C.No.692/2016 abusing and assaulting her and abetted her to die. Due to the act of accused, deceased became anguish and set fire herself and committed suicide.
12. To prove the said allegations of torture and abatement of accused to commit suicide the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses as refereed above. As on the date of incident i.e., on 18.11.2015 the deceased, accused and his brother were residing in a shed and looking after the newly construction work at Naidu Layout, when the deceased has set flame by herself by locking the latch of the shed from inside at that time accused No.1 and his brother were in the house. Due to shouting of the deceased because of burn injuries and as the accused and his brother shouted as they were not able to came outside to rescue the deceased, hence the neighbors by hearing the shouting came and opened the latch. Immediately, the accused and his brother came out of the housed and poured water and thereafter the accused and his brother took the deceased to 8 S.C.No.692/2016 the nearby hospital and after providing first Aid, she was shifted to Victoria Hospital. This shows the concern of the accused with his wife. Suppose if the accused is not having love and affection on his wife and if he is really abated the deceased to die, by abusing and assaulting then he may not made any efforts to set off the fire and also might have not shifted the deceased to the hospital immediately. Even the concern police of Victoria Hospital might have recorded the statement of the deceased, so that the truth might have been came from the mouth of the deceased at the time of death. There is no such efforts by the police in support of the knowing admission of the deceased in the hospital. So also the IO has not produced any record or any piece of paper to show her approachment of medical officer to record the statement of the deceased. It appears something has hided by IO during investigation to bring out the truth.
13. However immediately after the incident, the brother of the deceased CW4-Mr.Somanath has given 9 S.C.No.692/2016 statement before the ASI who is also not cited as witnesses in the charge sheet. The statement of the said witness CW4 marked at EX.P12. On careful reading of EX.P12 discloses that since his brother in law i.e., accused adviced the deceased to go for work to lead happy life, hence the deceased has poured kerosene by herself and set fire. According to the brother of deceased, there is no fault on the part of the accused relating to said incident. As such the ASI has registered UDR FIR bearing No.23/2015, marked at EX.P13 and submitted to the concerned magistrate. The deceased was succumbed to death on 19.11.2015. After the death of the deceased due to burn injuries, the same was informed to the parents of the deceased by the aunt of the accused over phone, thereafter they came to Bangalore. Such being the case, the medical records marked at EX.P9 to P11 shows that the death was due to 80-85%, 2 nd and 3rd degree ontemortem burn injuries. So the death of the deceased is not in dispute, the postmortem report and medical report have been marked at EX.P9 to P11. 10 S.C.No.692/2016
14. It is necessary to discuss about the evidence of PW5-K.Narasimhamurthy, Thasildar. The evidence of said witness shows that on 19.11.2015 he received requisition as per EX.P2 to conduct inquest mahazar on the dead body of the deceased. On 20.11.2015 at 1p.m he went to the mortuary and conducted inquest mahazar on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the panchas and also recorded the statements of the parents, other family members of the deceased. On the basis of the statements given by the deceased parents, he has forwarded letter to the PI to take necessary legal action against the accused. According to the statement recorded by the Thasildar, the parents of the deceased have given statement that the accused has set fire to their daughter i.e., deceased and killed. The said letter has got marked by the prosecution at EX.P5 dated 23.11.2015. There is a big delay in forwarding the letter by the tahsildar to register crime against the accused vide crime No.171/2015 for the offenses punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 of IPC. The said FIR has been marked at 11 S.C.No.692/2016 EX.P14. In the cross-examination the said tahsildar has shown his ignorance about not aware of giving statement by the brother of the deceased before ASI. It appears the tahsildar though knowing the truth has denied as if he is not aware anything about giving of statement by the brother of the deceased i.e., CW4 though he had received UDR report, FIR along with statement of CW4 prior to conducting of inquest mahazar. Since the statement of CW4 not discloses the commission of offenses by the accused, hence tahsildar has created the statement of the parents of the deceased after lapse of month time just to harass the accused. The act of the tahsildar is against to law. At this stage it is necessary to relay upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported as under:
State by Kumsi Police .............Appellant Nagaraj and Anr. .............Respondents Criminal Appeal No.633 of 2004 dated on 23.04.2010 Indian Penal code, 1860-Section 306 and 498A- Deceased got married to respondent four years 12 S.C.No.692/2016 before incident committed suicide by poisoning in her matrimonial home-Trial Court found evidence did not show if accused had willfully misconducted in a manner only with intention to drive her to suicide- Witnesses were found to have not stated regarding ill-treatment or harassment-Appeal against order of acquittal-At the time of inquest, parents of deceased were present and no witness came up to give any complaint-Only after 7 days that police converted case into crime as unnatural death-Evidence did not prove if respondent abetted, helped or instigated in suicide-Acquittal called for no interference.
So the above discussions itself creates lots of doubts about the case of the prosecution.
15. The evidence of PW1 who is relative of accused speaks about the commission of suicide by the deceased did not know the enact cause for committing of suicide by the deceased. Though the accused counsel has not cross- 13 S.C.No.692/2016 examined PW1,which does make any harm to the accused counsel. The parents of the deceased PW2-Shivappa Betagiri, PW3-Rayamma have given evidence about marriage of deceased with the accused and giving gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Further evidence also shows that the accused by intoxication condition, assaulting their daughter every day and also once burnt her saree and also caused burnt injuries to the thighs of their daughter. According to said witness, the accused has killed her daughter by setting fire. But there is no believable evidence placed by the prosecution to that effect. In the cross-examination the said witness has admitted they have given some clothes and some gold ornaments as per customs. It is also noticed from their evidence that the setting of fire to the deceased by the accused is totally against to their statements. The both sons Mr.Somanath and Mr. Hanumanth were also residing in the house of the accused at Bangalore. After some time the deceased and accused have vacated the said house and started to reside 14 S.C.No.692/2016 separately by paying advance. When the sons of PW2 and PW3 residing along with the accused have not paid any amount to help the accused in giving rent nor advance of the house. The said witness have also admitted the deceased and accused residing together for more than three and half years. At that time no single complaint has been lodged against the accused for any reasons. This admissions shows that the accused has no intention to commit any offenses and also the deceased has not received in sort of ill-treatment from the accused to commit suicide. It appears as usually the accused may have just told the deceased to join her hands by doing work for which the deceased refused to join her hands by doing any work and due to which the deceased might have committed suicide.
16. It is pertinent to note the neighbors of the spot by name Rupa, Srinath, Ponnanna examined as PW6 to PW8 who were residing together and came outside by seeing the incident have also shifted the deceased in their vehicle to 15 S.C.No.692/2016 the hospital for treatment. The evidence of PW6 to PW8 not discloses any type of harassment having received by the deceased and on the other hand, the accused and his brother were shouting from the shed to open the door which was locked from outside. The evidence given by PW6 to PW8 not supports the prosecution story and on the other hand helps defense taken by the accused. As such the learned PP has treated the said witnesses as hostile and cross- examined. Since suggestions of the learned PP completely denied, hence their statements have been marked at EX.P6 to P8 respectively. The another witness PW9-K.Somashekhar being contractor, under whom accused was doing meason work given evidence that there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased for a reason of infertility. Once he has advised not to do any quarrel and directed them to take necessary treatment in the hospital. He was not particular about any quarrel alleged to be held on 18.11.2015. but his evidence shows that when the accused and his brother were doing dinner, at that time the deceased has locked the door 16 S.C.No.692/2016 from outside and set ablaze herself and same was came to know on next day through mestri Bhaskr. The said witnesses being the hear say witness, hence during cross- examination the said witness has admitted that he came to know only on the say of mestri Bhaskar. He has admitted the accused and deceased has never quarreled with each other in his presence and he has also admitted he has never given statement before the police that the accused was giving ill-treatment to the deceased due to the reason of infertility. As such the evidence of said witness PW6 to PW9 not helpful for the prosecution in order ot prove the guilt aginst the accused.
17. The panchas by name Mr.Shivaraj and Uday Kumar examined as PW4 and Pw11 not supported conducting of seizure mahazar in their presence at the time of incident. They have not stated anything about seizure of plastic kerosene can, burnt clothes and match box in their presence. According to them the police have obtained their 17 S.C.No.692/2016 signature in the police station. And the police have not conducted mahazar in their presence at spot. As such the evidence given by PW4 and PW11 not supports the prosecution in proving the mahazar marked at Ex.P1.
18. As already discussed above the PW10-Smt.Marry Shailaja has filed charge sheet. The ASI who has registered the UDR FIR not cited as witness for best reasons known to her. However the evidence given by PW10 , the then PI of Gangammagudi PS., discloses that on 23.11.2015 she had received the further investigation from the ASI Shantarajayya who has registered UDR No.23/15. The said witness evidence also shows that on the basis of the requisition of the ASI, Thashildar has conducted inquest mahazar and also recorded the statement of the deceased family members and sent requisition as per EX.P5 to take necessary legal action against the accused in view of the statement of the deceased parents. On that basis, PW10 had registered crime No.171/15 against the accused and 18 S.C.No.692/2016 submitted FIR to the court as per EX.P4. On same day, she had visited spot and conducted spot mahazar in the presence of panchas and recorded the statement of witnesses and also she prepared a rough sketch of the spot. She had collected the photos of the deceased produced by the ASI marked at EX.P16. She had deputed CW17 to trace the accused. The accused produced before her on 23.11.2015. She had arrested the accused and produced before the court on 24.11.2015. She had also collected medical reports and postmortem reports and also recorded the statement of witnesses and finally submitted charge sheet against this accused for the offenses punishable u/s 306 of IPC. In the cross-examination she had admitted FIR was registered by her on the basis of the requisition of the tahsildar. She has also admitted gap of four days between the date of UDR and the letter/requisition of tahsildar. She has also admitted she had not tried to know the reason for the delay and also not recorded the statements of the tahsildar for the delay in sending of requisition. She has also 19 S.C.No.692/2016 admitted the statement of CW4 read over to her. As already discussed above, the said statement shows that the deceased and accused were living happily and the accused was just advising the deceased and except that the accused was not giving any torture. The remaining evidence of all the witnesses PW1 to PW11 discloses that the deceased has committed suicide by herself and not due to the harassment or torture of the accused. It appears, the deceased might have very hyper sensitive in taking decision and due to her own fault or to avoid going for work might have committed suicide. It is very clear from the evidence of the above witnesses and also from the above reasons that the prosecution has completely failed in proving the guilt against the accused beyond doubts. Hence, this Court has answered point No.1 in the Negative.
19. Point No.2: In view of answer of court on points No.1 and 2, this court pass the following:
20 S.C.No.692/2016
ORDER U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.306 of of Indian Penal Code.
The bail and surety bonds of accused stand canceled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 18 th day of May, 2020) (E. RAJEEVA GOWDA) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru 21 S.C.No.692/2016 ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: Sharanappa P.W.2: Shivappa P.W.3: Rayamma P.W.4: Shivaraj P.W.5: Narasimhamurthy P.W.6: Roopa P.W.7: Shrinath P.W.8: Ponnanna P.W.9: Somashekhar P.W.10: Marry Shailaja P.W.11: Uday Kumar
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: seizure mahazar
Ex.P.2: Letters to tahsildar
Ex.P.3: Notice
Ex.P.4: Statement of PW5
Ex.P.5: Letters to tahsildar to police
Ex.P.6: Statement of PW6
Ex.P.7: Statement of PW7
Ex.P.8: Statement of PW8
Ex.P.9: MLC
Ex.P.10: Accident Register
Ex.P.11: PM report
Ex.P.12: UDR Complaint
Ex.P.13: UDR FIR No.23/15
22 S.C.No.692/2016
Ex.P.14: FIR No.171/15
Ex.P.15: Sketch of Building
Ex.P.16: 2 photos
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
NIL List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:- NIL List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:-
NIL (E. RAJEEVA GOWDA) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru 23 S.C.No.692/2016 Due to closure of Courts, because of Covid- 19, this case was posted from1.4.2020 to 15.04.2020, on 4.5.2020 and on 18.05.2020.
Order pronounced in the open Court vide its separate order ORDER U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.306 of of Indian Penal Code.
The bail and surety bonds of
accused stand canceled.
(E. RAJEEVA GOWDA)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru