Bangalore District Court
(By The Learned Public Prosecutor) vs Used To Pickup Quarrel With The Deceased ... on 17 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF OCTOBER 2018
PRESENT
Sri. T.N. INAVALLY, B.A.L., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C. No.1405/2017
BETWEEN
The State of Karnataka
Yelahanka New Town Police Station,
Bengaluru. .... COMPLAINANT
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
AND
Prathap, S/o Devaraj,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at Rented house of Srivatsa,
Near Sambharam College,
Muniswamappa Layout, Bengaluru.
Permanent R/o Thondehallli Village,
Belluru Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk,
Mandya District. .... ACCUSED
(By Sri. M.G.S., Advocate)
*****
JUDGMENT
This case is the result of charge sheet filed by the complainant Police against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short).
2. The prosecution was set into motion against the accused on the complaint of C.W.1 Sri. Narasimharaju, the son of Chandrappa, who is father of the deceased Nalina ('the deceased' for short). The 2 S.C.No.1405/2017 case of prosecution is that the accused married the deceased in the month of August 2015 without permission of parents of the deceased and the said married was love marriage. The deceased was residing with the accused in his house, as C.W.1 Narasimharaju and C.W.7 Smt. Vasanthamma, who are parents of the deceased, did not allow them for residing with them. Subsequently, the accused and the deceased were residing in a rented house in Bengaluru. The male child was born to the deceased in the said marriage. Thereafter the accused brought the deceased to the house of C.W.1 and the C.W.1 and C.W.7 forgave them and made the deceased and the accused reside in the house of C.W.1.
3. It is also the case of prosecution that the accused is driver and he used to come home once in a week. The accused used to come drunk to the house late at night and he neglected to maintain the deceased and her child. Thereafter, the C.W.1 and C.W.7, the parents of the deceased, got arranged a rented house belonging to C.W.2 near Sambhram College in Muniswamappa Extension, Vidyaranyapura within the jurisdiction of complainant police station for the accused and the deceased. The advance amount was paid by the C.W.1 and he arranged the said house. When the deceased and her child were residing along with the accused in the said house, the accused used to come home once in a week and he used to come late in the night. 3 S.C.No.1405/2017 When the deceased questioned the accused regarding the same, the accused used to pickup quarrel with the deceased and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. Thereafter on 23.03.2017 in the midnight the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased and with intention of causing her death squeezed her neck and thereby caused death of the deceased and hence the accused committed the alleged offence.
4. On the complaint of C.W.1 the complainant police registered this case against the accused as per their Cr.No.53/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 302 of IPC and took up investigation. At the initial stage of investigation of case, the accused was arrested and he was remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the accused has been in judicial custody. After completion of investigation they filed charge sheet against the accused for the said offence. As stated herein above, at the initial stage itself the accused was arrested and he was remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the accused has been in judicial custody.
5. The accused appeared through the counsel before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate furnished copy of the charge sheet to the accused and hence, the provision of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. was complied with. As the offence charge sheeted against the accused is exclusively triable by this Court, the learned Magistrate acting under Sec.209 of Cr.P.C. has committed this case to this Court 4 S.C.No.1405/2017 for trial. Hence, the matter is taken up before this Court for further proceedings accordingly.
6. The accused has been in judicial custody. As per the direction of this Court, he has been produced before this Court and he has appeared through the counsel. After hearing the learned Prosecutor and also the counsel for accused, as there are sufficient materials against the accused for the alleged offence, this Court has framed charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 302 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty of the said offence and thereby he has claimed to be tried of the offence charged.
7. In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15. The prosecution has produced 18 documents at Exs.P.1 to P.18. After closing of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court has recorded the statement of the accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. in which the accused has denied the incriminating materials forthcoming against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as false. Further, he has submitted that:
"£Á£ÀÄ PÁå¨ï qÀÉçʪÀgï DV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ £À½£Á wÃjPÉÆAqÀ §UÉÎ £Á£Éà ªÉÆzÀ°UÉ ¥ÉÇð¸ÀjUÉ PÀA¥ÉèAmï PÉÆnÖzÉÝ. DzÀgÉ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî PÉøÀÄ zÁR®ÄªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛg.É "5 S.C.No.1405/2017
However, the accused has not chosen to adduce any defence evidence.
8. Heard the argument of the learned Prosecutor and also the counsel for accused. Perused 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 the accused being husband of the deceased subjected her to physical and mental cruelty as contended and thereby the accused committed the offence punishable under Sec.498-A of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 23.03.2017 in the midnight at about 12.00 clock the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased regarding family dispute and with intention of causing death of the deceased, squeezed the neck of the deceased and caused her death and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC?
3. What order?
9. After hearing the argument of both the parties and on considering 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:6 S.C.No.1405/2017
REASONS
10. 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.
11. It is not in dispute that the deceased is wife of the accused and the marriage of the deceased with the accused was love marriage. It is also not in dispute that as on the date of death of the deceased, she was residing with the accused in the rented house within the jurisdiction of complainant police. But, as the offence charged against the accused is punishable under Section 498-A and 302 of IPC, unless the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was subjecting the deceased to physical and mental cruelty and on the date of alleged incident, with the intention of causing death of the deceased, the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased and squeezed her neck and thereby caused death of the deceased, no case can be made out against the accused for the offence charged.
12. As stated herein above, the prosecution against accused was set into motion on the complaint of C.W.1 Narasimharaju. It is not in dispute that he is father of the deceased. The C.W.1 has been examined as P.W.1. As per the materials on record, it is clear that the case was registered on the complaint of P.W.1 by the then Police 7 S.C.No.1405/2017 Inspector of the complainant police station C.W.18 Shiva Kumar. The C.W.18 has been examined as P.W.15. In the evidence in chief- examination, the P.W.15 has deposed that on 26.03.2017 at about 8.45 a.m. the P.W.1 came to the police station and gave written complaint as per Ex.P.3 and accordingly, he registered the case on the said complaint in Cr.No.53/2017 as per FIR at Ex.P.17. On the same day thereafter the P.W.15 visited the spot and drew mahazar at Ex.P.4 in the presence of P.W.6 Srivatsa and P.W.8 Janakiram. Thereafter, the P.W.15 visited Ambedkar Hospital, wherein the dead body of the deceased was kept, and he issued requisition to the Tahsildar of Bengaluru North Taluk for conducting inquest panchanama of dead body of the deceased, as the deceased died within 7 years from the date of her marriage.
13. It is also the evidence of P.W.15 that after the Tahsildar having conducted inquest panchanama, the P.W.15 handed over the dead body of the deceased to the relatives of deceased. Thereafter, on the same day in the police station the P.W.15 recorded the statements of P.W.6 Srivatsa, P.W.2 M.H. Suresh, P.W.12 Chandra Kumar and C.W.10 Smt. Sharada. On the same day, the P.W.15 also recorded the statement of his Women Police Constable P.W.7 Savitha, who brought the clothes of the deceased from the hospital and produced those clothes before him. The P.W.15 seized the said clothes as per P.F. at 8 S.C.No.1405/2017 Ex.P.18. Further, on the same day, the PSI P.W.14 Rajanna produced the accused before him under arrest and gave report as per Ex.P.16. At that time the P.W.15 recorded voluntary statement of the accused and sent him to the Magistrate Court with remand application for remanding the accused to judicial custody.
14. The P.W.15 has also deposed that on 04.04.2017 he gave requisition as per Ex.P.13 to the Engineer of City Corporation. Thereafter on 20.04.2017 he received post mortem report of the deceased as per Ex.P.11 from Ambedkar hospital. On 15.05.2017 the P.W.15 received sketch at Ex.P.14 from the concerned Engineer and after completion of investigation, the P.W.15 filed charge sheet against the accused in the case. Hence, the evidence of P.W.15 is regarding the investigation of the case. However, unless there is evidence from the complainant P.W.1 and other independent witnesses to prove the alleged incident and also the mahazar at Ex.P.4, the evidence of P.W.15 and the above referred documents do not merit consideration to make out any case against the accused for the offence charged.
15. The P.W.14 Rajanna is PSI of the complainant police station. As per his evidence, on 25.03.2017 when he was in night beat duty, in the early morning of 26.03.2017 at about 4.30 - 5.00 a.m. he received wireless message from the Police station regarding murder of one woman in the house near Sambhram College in Muniswamappa 9 S.C.No.1405/2017 Extension. On receiving the said information, he immediately visited the said house. At that time the P.W.6 Srivatsa, the owner of the said house was present at the spot. When the P.W.14 went to the spot he found the dead body of woman in lying position in the bedroom. Immediately the P.W.14 informed the same to the then Police Inspector, P.W.15. Thereafter, he along with Head Constable C.W.16 Narasimhamurthy was appointed for apprehending the accused and hence, on the same day at about 2.30 p.m. the P.W.14 apprehended the accused near M.S. Palya bus stand and produced the accused before the P.I. P.W.15 with the report as per Ex.P.16.
16. As pointed out by the counsel for accused, if the evidence of P.W.14 is taken into consideration, it is clear that P.W.14 visited the spot and saw the dead body earlier to registration of the case as per the FIR at Ex.P.17. There is absolutely no material forthcoming from P.W.14 and also from the prosecution materials to show why P.W.14 did not register the case immediately, if at all he visited the spot on 26.03.2017 at about 4.30 a.m. itself. Hence, the evidence of P.W.14 regarding the alleged incident does not stand for consideration. Further, even if the evidence of P.W.14 is accepted as true regarding arrest of the accused and the report at Ex.P.16, such evidence does not help the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the 10 S.C.No.1405/2017 circumstances pointing out guilt to the accused regarding the offence charged.
17. As discussed herein above, the case was registered on the complaint of P.W.1. As discussed herein above, it is not in dispute that the marriage of the accused with the deceased was love marriage and they were residing in the house within the jurisdiction of complainant police station as on the date of death of the deceased. Two photos of the marriage of the deceased with the accused are got marked in the evidence of P.W.1 as per Exs.P.1 and P.2. However, the evidence of P.W.1 in the chief-examination itself regarding the case of prosecution reads thus:
"ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À½£Á ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ ZÉ£ÁßVzÀÝgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ°è £À½£ÁUÉ MAzÀÄ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄUÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀz Û .É £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 26.03.2017 gÀAzÀÄ £À½£Á wÃjPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. DzÀgÉ DPÉ ºÉÃUÉ wÃjPÉÆArzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®.è "
The evidence of P.W.1 is also that on the date of alleged incident at about 6.00 p.m. the police informed him over phone that the accused and the deceased quarreled each other and came to the police station. Hence, the P.W.1 went to the police station and at that time he came to know about the death of the deceased.
18. The relevant portion in the evidence in chief examination of P.W.1 reads thus:
11 S.C.No.1405/2017
"¥ÉÇð¸ï oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀÄ £À£Àß°è »A¢£À ¢£À gÁwæ DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À½£Á ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ QvÁÛrPÉÆAqÀÄ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CgÉÆæ ¸Á¬Ä¹zÁÝ£É FUÀ £À½£Á ±ÀªÀ AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ ¸ÀPÁðj D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è EzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ."
This evidence of P.W.1 shows that he does not know about the case of prosecution that the accused subjected the deceased to any kind of mental and physical harassment and ill-treatment. Further, it is very pertinent to note that in the evidence in chief-examination itself, the P.W.1 has deposed that he does not know why, how and for what reason the deceased died. Further, P.W.1 has denied that he gave any complaint to the police as per Ex.P.3.
19. The evidence of P.W.1 regarding the document at Ex.P.3 reads thus:
"£Á£ÀÄ F PÉùUÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥l À ÖAvÉ ¥ÉÇð¸ï oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉ.Ý D ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀÄ §gÀªÀtôUÉ EzÀÝ MAzÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÉ £À£Àß ¸À» vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ°è K£ÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §gÉ¢vÀÄÛ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è."
The P.W.1 has also denied that the police came to the house of accused and drew any mahazar as per Ex.P.4 in his presence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is quite contrary to the case of prosecution and hence, he is treated hostile and subjected to cross- examination by the prosecution. In the evidence in cross-examination also the P.W.1 has denied the case of prosecution alleged against the accused.
12 S.C.No.1405/2017
20. Moreover, in the evidence in cross-examination by the counsel for accused, the P.W.1 has deposed that:
"£À½£Á¼À ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ DPÉ, DPÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÉÄð£À ¦æÃw¬ÄAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀg£À ÀÄß PÉ®ªÀÅ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÁ® £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è Ej¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À½£Á ¸ÁAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀQÌAvÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¢£ÀU¼À À »AzÉ DgÉÆæAiÉÄà ¸ÀA¨ÀsæªÀÄ PÁ¯ÉÃf£À §½ ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
This evidence of P.W.1 is quite contrary to the prosecution case. There is absolutely no material forthcoming from the prosecution to show why P.W.1 being father of the deceased has turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
21. The P.W. 4 Vasanthamma is wife of P.W.1 and mother of the deceased. The P.W.4 has also denied the case of prosecution in her evidence in chief-examination. Further, she has denied that she gave any statement before the Tahsildar regarding the alleged incident. Hence, the P.W.4 has also turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In the evidence in cross-examination by the prosecution, the P.W.4 has denied that she gave any statement before the Tahsildar as per Ex.P.7.
22. The P.W.5 Narasamma is paternal aunt of the deceased i.e. she is elder sister of P.W.1. But in the evidence in chief-examination itself, the P.W.5 has denied the case of prosecution. She has also denied that she saw the dead body of the deceased in Ambedkar 13 S.C.No.1405/2017 hospital. However, the relevant portion in the evidence of P.W.5 in chief-examination reads thus:
"FUÉÎ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ »AzÉ £À½£Á wÃjPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥Áæ¸Á-1£ÉAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À½£Á K£ÉÆà QvÁÛrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ G¥À£ÀUgÀ À ¥ÉÇð¸ï oÁuÉUÉ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. DUÀ £À½£Á wÃjPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ¼É JAzÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ w½¬ÄvÀÄ."
This evidence of P.W.5 goes to show that her evidence regarding the alleged quarrel between the accused and the deceased is hearsay one.
23. Further, the P.W.5 has not stated the reason as to why the deceased died. The P.W.5 has denied that she gave any statement before the Tahsildar at the time of inquest panchanama. Therefore, the P.W.5 is also treated hostile by the prosecution and she is subjected to cross-examination. In the evidence in cross-examination the P.W.5 has denied that she gave any statement before the Tahsildar as per Ex.P.8.
24. The P.W.12 Chandra Kumar is the distant relative of P.W.1. He is the material witness. But the P.W.12 has denied the case of prosecution. He has denied that he gave any statement before the police as per Ex.P.12. The P.W.6 Srivatsa is owner of the house, wherein the deceased and the accused were residing on rent at the time of alleged incident. The P.W.6 is also alleged to be the attester to the spot panchanama at Ex.P.4. But the P.W.6 has denied that the 14 S.C.No.1405/2017 police came to the spot and drew any spot panchanama at Ex.P.4 is his presence. Further, the P.W.6 has denied that he gave any statement to the police. Hence, the P.W.6 is treated hostile and subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution. In the evidence in cross-examination also, the P.W.6 has denied that he gave any statement to the police as per Ex.P.9 and police drew any panchanama at Ex.P.4 in his presence at the house of the accused.
25. The P.W.8 Janakiram is one of the attesters to the spot panchanama at Ex.P.4. But he has denied that the police drew any such panchanama. On the other hand, in the evidence in chief- examination itself, the P.W.8 has deposed that the police called him to the police station and took his signature as per Ex.P.4(c) in blank paper. Therefore, the P.W.8 has turned hostile to the case of prosecution regarding spot panchanama at Ex.P.4. Moreover, as discussed herein above, the P.W.1 himself has denied that the police came to the house of accused and drew any panchanama as per Ex.P.4 in his presence.
26. The P.W.11 Anil is the Special Tahsildar of Yelahanka Taluk, who is alleged to have drawn inquest panchanama of the deceased. In the evidence in chief-examination the P.W.11 has deposed that on the request of PSI of Yelahanka New Town police station, he went to Ambedkar Medical College on 26.03.2017 and drew inquest 15 S.C.No.1405/2017 panchanama of dead body of the deceased for the period from 10.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. in the presence of P.W.2 M.H. Suresh, P.W.3 Hanumantharaju and P.W.10 Ramesh. At the time of drawing of inquest panchanama at Ex.P.5 he recorded the statements of P.W.4 Vasanthamma and P.W.5 Narasamma as per Ex.P.7 and P.8. But the P.W.4 and P.W.5 have denied that they gave any statement before Tahsildar as per Ex.P.7 and P.8 respectively.
27. The P.W.2 Suresh and P.W.3 Hanumantharaju are alleged to be the attesters to the inquest panchanama at Ex.P.5. But both of them have denied that the Tahsildar drew any such panchanama in their presence and they knew the contents of the said panchanama. Further, the P.W.2 has denied that he gave any statement to the police as per Ex.P.6. The P.W.10 is also alleged attester to the inquest panchanama at Ex.P.5. But he has also denied that the Tahsildar drew any inquest panchanama at Ex.P.5 in his presence. Hence, the evidence of P.W.10 is also quite contrary to the case of prosecution regarding inquest panchanama at Ex.P.5.
28. Moreover, even if the evidence of P.W.11 and inquest panchanama at Ex.P.5 are taken as proved, unless the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused subjected the deceased to any kind of mental and physical cruelty and he caused death of the deceased on the date of alleged incident, the evidence of 16 S.C.No.1405/2017 P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.10 and P.W.11 and the inquest panchanama at Ex.P.5 do not merit consideration to make out any case against the accused for the offence charged.
29. The P.W.9 Dr. B.M. Nagaraj is the doctor, who conducted post mortem of the deceased and issued post mortem report as per Ex.P.11. As per the opinion of P.W.9 and the post mortem report at Ex.P.11, the death of the deceased was due to Asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation - throttling. It is true that the P.W.9 has deposed that there were some injuries found on the dead body of the deceased. But, unless the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged incident the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased and caused injuries to her and also thereby caused her death by squeezing her neck, the evidence of P.W.9 and the post mortem report at Ex.P.11 do not merit consideration to make out any case against the accused for the offence charged.
30. The P.W.7 Savitha is the Women P.C. who allegedly collected the clothes of the deceased from the hospital and produced them before P.W.15 as per report at Ex.P.10. The P.W.13 Chandrakanth is the Assistant Engineer of BBMP, who allegedly prepared sketch at Ex.P.14. The document at Ex.P.15 is the letter of BBMP issued to the I.O. regarding furnishing the sketch at Ex.P.14. The evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.13 and the documents at Ex.P.10, 17 S.C.No.1405/2017 P.14 and P.15 are in no way helpful to the case of prosecution to make out the case charged against the accused.
31. From the discussions made herein above, it is clear that there is absolutely no independent cogent evidence forthcoming from the prosecution to prove any circumstances making out the case that the accused subjected the deceased to any kind of mental and physical cruelty and thereby on the date of alleged incident, he caused death of the deceased. The P.W.1 and the P.W.4, who are parents of the deceased, have not supported the case of prosecution. There is absolutely no material forthcoming from the prosecution to show why the P.W.1 and P.W.4 being parents of the deceased have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. There is absolutely no any independent witness supported the case of prosecution to prove the alleged incident, the spot panchanama at Ex.P.4 and the inquest panchanama at Ex.P.5. Therefore, doubt arises regarding the case alleged against the accused.
32. It is settled principle of law that the accused is entitled to the benefit of such doubt. Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being husband of the deceased subjected the deceased to any kind of physical and mental cruelty and on the date of alleged incident, he picked up quarrel with the deceased and with intention of causing her death 18 S.C.No.1405/2017 squeezed her neck and thereby caused the death of the deceased. Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the accused person has committed the alleged offence. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove points No.1 and 2 and therefore, the points No.1 and 2 are answered in the negative.
33. Point No.3: From the discussion made herein above, it is clear that the accused deserves to be acquitted of the offence charged against him in this case. In the result, therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code.
The accused is set at liberty forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 17th day of October, 2018) (T.N. INAVALLY) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46) 19 S.C.No.1405/2017 ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: Narasimharaju P.W.2: M.H. Suresh P.W.3: Hanumantharaju P.W.4: Vasanthamma P.W.5: Narasamma P.W.6: Srivatsa P.W.7: Savitha P.W.8: Janakiram P.W.9: Dr. B.M. Nagaraj P.W.10: Ramesh P.W.11: Anil P.W.12: Chandrakumar P.W.13: Chandrakanth P.W.14: Rajanna C. P.W.15: V.S. Shivakumar List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Photo Ex.P.2: Photo Ex.P.3: Complaint Ex.P.4: Mahazar Ex.P.5: Inquest panchanama Ex.P.6: Statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.7: Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.8: Statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.9: Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.10: Statement of P.W.7 20 S.C.No.1405/2017 Ex.P.11: Post mortem report Ex.P.12: Statement of P.W.12 Ex.P.13: Letter from police Ex.P.14: Sketch Ex.P.15: Letter from BBMP Ex.P.16: Report of P.W.14 Ex.P.17: FIR Ex.P.18: P.F.No.16/2017.
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 (T.N. INAVALLY) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46)