H S Rajashekara Reddy vs State Of Karnataka By on 24 July, 2015

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

H S Rajashekara Reddy vs State Of Karnataka By on 24 July, 2015

Bench: R.B Budihal

                                  1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2015

                              BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1376/2012


BETWEEN:

H S Rajashekara Reddy
S/o Late Somaiaha Reddy
Aged 37 years
Halaganahalli Kasaba Hobli
Gowribidanur Taluk
Chikkaballapur District.                            .. APPELLANT

(By Sri H S Rajashekara Reddy, Party-in-person
 Sri. Vijay Kumar Prakash, Amicus Curiae)
AND:

State of Karnataka by
Yeshwanthpur Rural Police
(Railway Police)                                    .. RESPONDENT

(By Sri K R Keshava Murthy, SPP-2)


      This criminal appeal is filed under Section 374(2) CR.P.C praying
to set aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 30.06.2012
passed by the ADHOC S.J., F.T.C.-I, Chikkaballapur in
S.C.No.71/2010-convicting the appellant/accused for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC and etc.
                                   2


      This appeal having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement of judgment, this day, the Court delivered the
following:


                            JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.6.2012 passed by the Fast Track Court-I at Chikkaballapur in S.C No.71/2010 convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1/4th of the above sentence.

2. Case of the prosecution as narrated in the appeal memorandum is that as per complaint Ex.P.1 dated 8.8.2009, one Samay Singh Meena, Station Master, South Western Railway, Doddaballapur sent intimation to GRP ASI/D.B.Y. stating that Sri. C.A. Nagaraju, son of Angu Reddy, native of Chikkakurud reported that a female dead body aged 29 years found by the side of the track at K.M. 74/800-900 between SMWA-GBD station. This was received by the 3 Sub-Inspector of Police (Railways) Rural Police Station, Yeshwanthpura on 8.8.2009 at 8.30 a.m. and registered a case in UDR No.119/2009 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. On 8.8.2009, one Smt. G.T. Nagarathnamma resident of Chikkakurugud, Gowribidanur Taluk lodged the complaint before the Police Sub Inspector, Rural Railway Police Station, Yeshwanthpur alleging that she is residing in the address mentioned in the complaint, having two daughters and one son namely Kumari Aruna, Sri. Ramachandra Reddy and Anitha (deceased). It is further mentioned in the complaint that about 11 years back, the deceased Anitha was given in marriage to H.S. Rajashekar Reddy, i.e., the accused herein, who is the son of late Somaiah Reddy. At the time of marriage, the couple was happy and out of the wedlock, they were having a daughter Usha, aged 9 years and a son Suhas aged four years. The son in law of the complainant Rajashekar Reddy was serving in military and he was in ASC Center Haryana, Hissar district. When Anitha was with her husband, the accused herein, at the said place, he was giving ill treatment to her and she was informing about the same to the complainant over the phone and the complainant was consoling her. She was telling that her husband-accused used to come to the 4 house every day consuming alcohol. He was assaulting her and abusing her in filthy language. Even though the complainant advised the accused many times, even then, he did not correct himself. Panchayat was held in that regard number of times. Thereafter, the accused started illicit connection with one Susheelamma, who was the resident of Mallenahalli and he was insisting the deceased Anitha to give divorce to him. In February 2009, accused was transferred to Bengaluru and at that time, he was staying with the deceased at Kurugud village and three months earlier to the incident, the couple were staying in the rented house in Madhav Nagar at Gowribidanur. When he went to the said house, the accused started ill treatment insisting her to give divorce and in case, she did not give divorce, he will consume poison or else, she should consume poison and to die. The same was informed by Anitha to her mother, the complainant herein. During the night on 7.8.2009, the accused gave ill treatment to Anitha and abetted her to commit suicide. Because of this ill treatment and harassment so also the assault on her, she was mentally depressed and she went and fell on the railway track under the running train and died. Accused is responsible for the death of complainant's daughter Anitha and she requested to take 5 action in accordance with law. On the basis of the said complaint case was registered in Bengaluru Rural Railway Police Station Crime No.54/2006 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

3. The investigating officer after conducting the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Charge was framed against the accused for the said offence. During the course of trial, prosecution examined in all 21 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 21 and got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to P.38. On the side of accused, no evidence was adduced and no documents were produced.

4. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant accused during the course of the arguments submitted that the motive for the case is that accused was having illicit connection with P.W.14 (M.G. Susheelamma) and because of that reason, he was insisting the deceased to give divorce to him so that he could marry the said lady. It is also his submission that at the first instance, case was registered in UDR. 6 Thereafter, after due deliberation of the complainant and other family members, the accused has been implicated in the case. The accused was serving in the Army and since two years, prior to the incident, he was living separately and not living with the deceased and hence, the question of cruel treatment does not arise at all. Till 7.45 a.m. of the date of the incident, the relatives of the deceased also not knowing as to what had happened to the deceased. The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that with regard to the ill treatment, there is no acceptable and cogent evidence adduced before the Court. Perusing the evidence of P.W.5 that there are serious omissions about the material facts and hence, the evidence of P.W.5 cannot be believed and relied upon. He further submitted that looking to the evidence of P.W.8, it is again inconsistent with the story of the prosecution and it also goes to falsify the evidence of Nagarathnamma (P.W.7). The appellant accused never executed the undertaking as per Ex.P.2 and the signature as per P.2(a) is not tallying with the signature on the plea. P.W.10, the daughter of the appellant and the deceased, is a tutored witness which is very clear from her evidence itself. But even then, the trial Court has wrongly relied upon the evidence of P.W.10. It is also his submission 7 that though it is contended that all along the appellant accused was giving ill treatment and harassment to the deceased, no complaint has been lodged before the police or any other authority about the same. The statement of the prosecution witnesses was not recorded at the earliest and there is delay in recording the statement. P.W.10, the daughter of appellant and the deceased, always used to stay with her grand mother and not with the parents and hence there is every possibility of tutoring P.W.10. It is further submitted that though P.W.11 has deposed that he has seen the incident in the early morning at about 3.00 or 3.30, but looking to his subsequent conduct, it is unnatural and cannot be believed. It is also contended that regarding allegation of the prosecution that the appellant accused was having extra marital relationship with P.W.14-Susheelamma, the affair was earlier to 2008 and not thereafter. Therefore, no importance can be attached to the evidence of P.W.14 or to the photos or the love letters produced by the prosecution. He submitted that the love letter Ex.P.4 and another letter under Ex.P.10 are dated 15.4.2007 and 25.4.2007 and hence, they are not relevant for the purpose of this case. P.W.14 Susheelamma has clearly deposed that her marriage was performed with 8 another person and when she gave the statement, she was carrying the pregnancy from her husband and in spite of this evidence on record, the trial Court has wrongly relied upon such evidence and wrongly convicted the appellant accused. So far as Ex.P.2 undertaking letter is concerned, admittedly, there is no person or elders on the side of the accused and all the persons who signed are only on the side of the complainant and the deceased. There is no evidence to show that there was continuous cruelty to the deceased from the appellant accused. In the absence of the same, it cannot be said that the appellant accused is the main cause who abets commission of suicide by the deceased. The requirements of Section 306 of IPC are not at all complied with by the prosecution. Hence, he submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt be given to the appellant accused and he be acquitted.

5. Alternatively, the learned Amicus Curiae also argued that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that there is supporting material on the basis of which the trial Court has convicted the accused, he submitted that the sentence imposed by the trial Court is too harsh and disproportionate and considering the services of the appellant 9 accused in the Army, lenient view may be taken and the sentence imposed by the trial Court may be reduced reasonably. In support of his arguments, learned Amicus Curiae has relied upon the following decisions:

1. 1994 SCC (Cri) 502 (Naresh Kumar and Another Vs. State of Haryana)

2. 2000 Crl. L. J. 2064 (S T Dayananda Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka)

3. 2007 Crl. L. J. 3176 (Bajirao Vs. State of Karnataka)

4. AIR 2001 SC 2124 (Arvind Singh Vs. State of Bihar)

5. 2003 Crl. L. J. 4708 (Besai Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs. State)

6. 1994 1 SCC 73 (State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal and Another)

7. 2010 12 Crl. L. J. SCC 190 (S S Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another)

8. 2012 Cri. L. J. 4388 (K Venkateshwarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh)

6. Per contra, Sri. Keshava Murthy, learned SPP-2 appearing for the respondent State, during the course of the arguments, submitted the deceased was subjected to cruel treatment by the appellant accused and that is the main reason for the deceased to commit suicide. He 10 submitted the evidence of P.W.14 Susheelamma has made it very clear that the appellant accused was having extra marital relationship with her and that was the reason for the appellant accused to give ill treatment and harassment to the deceased wife. It is also his submission that the accused was insisting the deceased to give divorce. Regarding ill treatment meted out to deceased, panchayats were held number of times and the appellant accused was advised, in spite of that, he continued his cruel treatment to the deceased. Even on 8.8.2009, early morning, the deceased was assaulted which was witnessed by P.W.10 the daughter of the appellant and the deceased and P.W.10 has deposed in her evidence about the said assault made on her mother. It is also his submission that the demeanor of P.W.10 was observed while recording evidence by the trial Court and the witness P.W.10 was virtually weeping while giving her evidence that too by explaining the cruel treatment meted out by the accused on her mother. He submitted that P.W.11 Ashwathappa, who is a neighbourer, is the eye witness to the assault made on the early morning of 8.8.2009 and he has also deposed about the same in his evidence. The learned SPP submitted that it is not only the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but even the 11 documentary evidence by way of photos, ATM Card Xerox, love letters, money order forms, bank account opening documents, all clearly would show that the appellant accused though married the deceased, had still continued his extra marital relationship with P.W.14 Susheelamma. It is his submission that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to cruel treatment meted out to the deceased by the appellant was not at all challenged seriously in the cross examination and nothing has been elicited from their mouth to disbelieve their version. P.W.8 Nagaraj, who was the member in the panchayat has also spoken about the advise made to the appellant accused to treat the deceased properly and not to give cruel treatment to her. The learned SPP also made submission that the contents of Ex.P.2 undertaking letter are as per the narration and dictation made by the appellant accused himself and therefore, he cannot dispute the validity of the said document. He also draws the attention of the Court to the mahazar witnesses P.Ws.12, 16 and P.W.20 so also the documents Exs.P.2, P.4, P.6 and P.27. He draws the attention of the Court to the evidence of P.Ws.17 and 18 and lastly, made the submission that the trial Court has taken all these aspects into consideration and rightly convicted the 12 appellant accused. There is no merit in the appeal and hence, submitted to dismiss the appeal.

7. The Court has also directed the prison authorities to produce the appellant before the Court on the last date of hearing i.e., on 03.07.2015; after conclusion of the arguments by the learned amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant/accused and also the learned SPP for the respondent-State, opportunity was also given to the appellant to submit his say in the matter, if any. In response to the same, the appellant has also argued in the matter and submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the case by the parents and other relatives of the deceased. He has submitted that his relationship with PW-14 is also not true and correct, and false documents were created in that regard and produced before the Court. It is his submission that, if at all he wrote such love letters to PW-14, then, how such letters have been produced from the custody of relatives of the deceased, which were supposed to be with the custody of PW-14 herself. It is also his submission that the said letters are without any postal cover and postal address; hence, how it can be imagined that they were addressed by the appellant and they 13 have reached to PW-14 or they come into the custody of either the deceased or the relative of the deceased. It his submission that regarding the aspect of custody of those documents is not satisfactorily established by the prosecution. The appellant has also submitted that two years earlier to the incident he was residing separately from the deceased and the other relatives of the deceased, hence, he giving ill- treatment during such period of two years does not arise at all. Regarding Ex.P-2, undertaking letter, he has submitted that it is not the document executed by him and it is also created for the purpose of implication of the appellant falsely in this case. The persons, who have signed Ex.P-2, are the relatives and the natives of deceased and her relations; not even a single witness signed Ex.P-2. Hence, he has submitted that, the trial Court without looking into all these aspects of the matter, wrongly convicted him and the lower Court order is illegal, hence, the appeal be allowed and he be acquitted from the case.

8. I have perused the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, documents produced in the case before the lower Court, the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court, decisions relied upon 14 by the learned amicus curiae for the appellant and the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum.

9. Let me refer to the relevant portion in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

PW-1-Shivareddy, who is the Station Superintendent, Gowribidanur, has deposed in his evidence in the examination-in-chief that from 2008 till the date of his deposition he was working as Station Master in the railway Station. On 8.8.2009 at 7.45 a.m. one C.A.Anjanappa came to him and informed that on the railway lines the dead body of his relative, who is a female, was lying. Immediately, after the said information, he reduced the same into writing and informed the same to the Station Master, Doddaballapur, over the phone and he requested that information be given to the relatives of the deceased.

10. PW-2-Samaysingh, Station Master, Doddaballapur Railway Station, deposed in his evidence that on 8.8.2009 at 7.45 a.m. he received the phone message from Station Master, Chikkaballapur Railway Station, informing that the dead body of a female aged about 15 29 years was lying on the Someshwar Gowribidanaur railway track. Thereafter, he addressed a letter to GRP Police, Doddaballapura as per Ex.P-1 and P-1(a) is his signature.

In the cross-examination, PW-2 has deposed that after receiving the information he had not been to the spot but only sent the report to Police over phone.

11. PW-3-Prakash Reddy has deposed in his evidence that he know the accused and his deceased wife Anitha; their marriage was performed 8-10 years back in the temple at Goravanahalli. After the marriage Anitha led the marital life with the accused. She is no more now, she expired on 8.8.2009. Her dead body was found lying by the side of the railway track. The main reason for her death was because her marital life was not happy. At 4.30 a.m. on 8.8.2009, Aruna, the elder sister of Anitha, informed over phone that her sister is not seen; during night there was a galata and in the early morning she went somewhere and after coming to know about the phone message, he came to the city at 5.30 a.m. When he was searching, at Maranahalli there was a gathering of people, he also went there and saw the dead 16 body of Anitha; there was injury on her head, her left leg was cut and it was lying at some distance from the body. Aruna is his sister. After seeing the dead body, they identified that it is of Anitha's body. Accused and Anitha were having two children. The accused was having extra marital relationship with one Susheelamma of Mallenahalli. In his presence 2-3 panchayats were held; once, the accused told before the panchayat that he will give up all those habits and he gave it in writing; even then he has not corrected his behaviour. As he was having illicit connection with Susheelamma, he was giving physical and mental ill- treatment to the deceased.

In the cross-examination PW-3 has deposed that, before the death of the deceased, whenever deceased came to the village she was telling before him about the ill-treatment given by her husband and even she had informed about the same over phone also, but about these facts he has not stated before the Police. A week earlier to the death she informed over phone about the ill-treatment. He admitted as true that for one year appellant was in the other state and he was staying alone. Out of the two years earlier to the incident, for one year, deceased was staying in her parental place and later for five months she 17 was staying in the rented house along with her mother and children. He does not know the illicit connection of the appellant with Susheela personally. He denied the suggestion that during his lifetime Anitha never informed him either personally or over the phone about the mental and physical ill-treatment given by her husband. He denied the further suggestion that on the previous day of the incident there was no galata between Anitha and the accused. At the time of writing Ex.P-2, except the accused, the family members of the accused or the native of the accused were not present. But he denied the suggestion that no such panchayat was held and Ex.P-2 was created after the death of Anitha. He also denied the suggestion that Ex.P-2(a) is not the signature of the accused.

12. PW-4 Venkatappa has deposed in his evidence that, he know Susheelamma, who is of his native. In between his house and the house of Susheelamma, there are two houses. The accused present before the Court came to his village 2-3 times from the year 2006-07 and 2008. Susheelamma informed him that said Rajashekar i.e, the appellant, is going to marry her.

In the cross-examination PW-4 has deposed that Susheelamma was not married earlier to 2 ½ years and there were no children at that time. He denied the suggestion that the accused never came to the house of Susheelamma. He denied the suggestion that, as the accused is before the Court, he is seeing the accused for the first time.

13. PW-5 Aruna.C.S., who is the elder sister of deceased deposed in her evidence in the examination-in-chief that the marriage of Anitha with the accused was performed about 7 years back. For three years they were happy and in the wedlock they are having one female and male children. As the accused was in military service, he served at Jammu-Kashmir, Puna and Rajashtan. 5-6 years earlier to the incident, the accused was giving physical and mental ill-treatment to Anitha by assaulting her and abusing her in filthy language and her sister was informing about the same whenever she used to come to her house. She advised the accused in that regard. Even then, the accused has not corrected his behaviour. Because of this reason, when accused came to their house her mother informed the accused that as he is not going to correct himself by the oral advice, they have to give complaint against 19 him; at that time the accused touched the feet of his mother-in-law and requested not to give the complaint, otherwise, he will loose his job and assured that he will correct himself and in that regard accused gave in writing as per Ex.P-2 and P-2(a) is the signature of the accused. Whenever accused was coming to their house he was telling to the deceased that she is having black complexion and he was insisting her to give divorce and he wanted to marry Susheelamma. He was often assaulting Anitha and because of that reason, she was having stomach pain. For the CET for teachers selection, she was preparing for the said exam, during the night on 07.08.2009, the accused came to her house consuming alcohol and started to abuse her in filthy language. He kicked her and pulled her hair, and insisting her to give divorce, as he has to marry Susheelamma or else she has to consume poison and die. This was informed by the daughter of her sister, when this ill-treatment was intolerable, Anitha escaped and ran away from the house; accused chased her and she escaped and became disappointed in her life, committed suicide by falling on the railway track.

Regarding the assault made by the accused and Anitha running away from the house in the early morning, her mother received call 20 from the mobile phone informing her that her son-in-law is assaulting Anitha, Anitha escaped and ran away from the house and even her son- in-law chased Anitha. They all went immediately, and searched for her sister and she saw the dead body of her sister lying at the railway track.

In the cross-examination, PW-5 deposed that five months earlier to the incident accused was transferred to Bengaluru and he was serving in ASC centre. Earlier to that he was serving at Hissar at Rajasthan, but witness volunteered that, at that time her sister was staying with them. She came to know about the ill-treatment given by the accused to her sister when she informed her over phone and when she personally told her. The panchayat was held for three times. One Prakash Reddy and Srinivas Reddy, who were of the native of the appellant-accused were present, but the relatives of the accused were not present. She denied the suggestion that Srinivas Reddy and Prakash Reddy are only their relatives. She denied the suggestion that no such panchayat was held and accused has not executed Ex.P-2 nor put his signature on the said document. She also denied the further suggestion that on the previous day of the incident, during night accused has not come to the house of her sister in a drunken state nor made the galata nor gave the ill- 21 treatment to her and on that day the accused was at Bengaluru but he has not come to the house of her sister. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely that because accused was having illicit connection with Susheelama and other women he was giving ill treatment to her sister.

14. P.W.6 C.S. Ramachandra Reddy has deposed in his evidence in the examination in chief that the accused is the husband of his sister Anitha and their marriage was performed about 11 years back at Goravana Halli. The couple were having one male and one female child. Accused was serving in Army and he served in Haryana, Jammu Kashmir and Pune. From 5-6 years earlier to the incident, accused was giving mental and physical ill treatment to the deceased. Accused was having illicit connection with one lady and in her presence only, he was teasing the deceased that she was not having fair complexion and he was insisting the deceased to divorce him. His sister was informing about the same over the phone and also personally whenever she used to come to her parental place. Even though the accused was advised, he did not correct himself and when the mother of the deceased wanted 22 to file complaint against the accused, he requested not to give complaint. In the panchayat, the accused executed an undertaking letter as per Ex.P.2. promising that he will correct himself in future. Though they had given gold ornaments and Rs.50,000/- cash, even then, the accused was giving ill treatment to the deceased. He was telling the deceased that she was having black complexion and teasing her and threatening her that if she did not give divorce, he will kill her children. The lady with whom he was having illicit connection is one Susheelamma. On 7.8.2009, when his sister was preparing for CET exam, the accused came to the house in a drunken state at about 7.00 - 7.30 p.m. and started to abuse the deceased in filthy language and he pulled her hair and kicked on the stomach. At that time, her mobile phone fell down and he insisted her to give divorce to him. When this ill treatment became intolerable, she escaped and ran away from the house. The accused chased her and because of the ill treatment, both physical and mental, she fell on the railway track and put an end to her life. At about 3.00 a.m. on 8.8.2009, there was a call to the mobile phone of his mother informing about the incident and they went towards the house of the accused and deceased, but the house was 23 under lock. Then they went towards railway track and came to know about the incident. At that time, the accused also came there having the male child on the shoulder and the female child was also dragged. After seeing the grand mother, the female child escaped from the accused and joined the grand mother nearby the railway track.

In the cross examination though it was suggested that the marriage of the deceased with accused was love marriage, P.W.6 denied the same. After the accused was transferred, a house was taken on rent. He denied the suggestion that for the first time, he is deposing before the Court that the accused was giving ill treatment to his sister and insisting her to give divorce and he was having illicit connection with Susheelamma and he has not stated about these facts before the police. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused was coming to the house at about 7.00 or 7.30 p.m. consuming alcohol and assaulting the deceased insisting her to give divorce and at about 3.30 a.m., there was a call to his mother's mobile informing about the incident, about all these things, he is saying for the first time before the court and not stated about those facts before the police. He denied the further suggestion that the accused has not at all executed Ex.P.2 and no person on the 24 side of the accused were present on the date of the execution of the Ex.P2. He denied the suggestion that the accused was staying at ASC center at Bengaluru and the deceased Anitha with her children were staying in the rented house. The witness volunteers and deposed that the accused used to come to the said house for every 15 days. He denied the suggestion that the couple were happy and the accused was not giving any ill treatment or harassment to her.

15. P.W.7 Nagarathnamma, who is the mother of the deceased, has deposed in her evidence in the examination in chief that accused is the husband of the deceased Anitha. Their marriage was performed about 11 years back at Goravanahalli Lakshmi Temple. For about 3 years, the couple were happy and they were having one male and one female child. When the accused was serving at Hissar at Haryana, the deceased went there and at that time, the accused was coming to the house in a drunken state and abusing her that she was not having fair complexion like Susheelamma of Mallenahalli. He was telling her that he will marry the said Susheelamma and insisting the deceased to give divorce. The deceased was informing her over phone 25 and also personally telling before her whenever she was coming to the native place. After the accused was transferred to Bengaluru, they were staying in the rented house at Maranahalli. Even at the said place also, the accused used to come in a drunken state insisting the deceased to give divorce. He used to assault her telling that if she did not give divorce, he will consume poison and die or else she should consume poison and die. On 7.8.2009, when the deceased was preparing for CET exam, the accused came to the house in drunken state and he kicked her on her stomach, pulled her hair and at that time, the mobile phone of the daughter fell down. There afterwards, P.W.10 her grand daughter informed her about the said ill treatment. In the early morning at 3.00 a.m., there was a mobile call to her mobile and informed her that the accused was assaulting the deceased and because of the assault, her daughter ran away from the house and the accused chased her. Then they all went to the house, but the house was under lock. The people gathered there informed them that the accused assaulted the deceased and when it became untolerable, she ran away and the accused also chased away. Then they also went towards the said place and saw the dead body of Anitha on railway track. As the accused was having illicit 26 connection with Susheelamma and wanted to have the second marriage with Susheelamma, he was teasing the deceased that she was not having the fair complexion like Susheelamma and insisting her to give divorce. He gave the mental and physical ill treatment to the deceased to commit suicide. She has also deposed that, earlier because of the ill treatment and harassment and as the accused did not correct himself, she wanted to give complaint against him. The accused gave the undertaking letter as per Ex.P.2 in the presence of panchayatdars promising that he will correct himself and requested not to give such complaint otherwise, he will loose the job. She has also deposed that she has produced the said undertaking letter and love letters written by Susheelamma and the photograph of accused with Susheelamma. She has further deposed that 15 days after the incident, when she went to the rented house where the couple were residing, it was not under lock. When they entered and searched in the waste papers, they found the love letters, photos and the undertaking letter and the same she has produced before the police. The said documents were seized under the seizure mahazar Ex.P6 and her signature is Ex.P6a.

In the cross-examination she deposed that except the phone message from Hissar there are no documents or the letters received from her daughter about the ill-treatment by the accused. She admitted as true that before the accused was transferred to Bangalore in February 2009 he was working at Hissar. She has denied the suggestions that the facts that when her daughter was staying at Hissar along with accused, he was telling her that she is not having fair complexion; she is not good; Susheelamma is a fair looking girl and he will marry her and give divorce to her daughter and he was assaulting the deceased when came to house in a drunken state and her daughter and her grand-daughter were informing the same to her over the phone and personally also whenever they used to come to her house, are false. It is also denied that the accused has not at all gave such ill-treatment nor her deceased daughter and her grand-daughter informed the same to her and that till her death deceased was leading happy marital life with the accused and they never quarreled with each other. She came to know about the illicit connection between the accused and Susheelamma in the year 2005-06. But they have not lodged the complaint in this regard. Srinivas Reddy and Prakash Reddy are the natives of the accused. She 28 has denied the suggestion that no panchayath was held nor the accused executed Ex.P2 document before the panchayath. Immediately after tracing the love letters and the photos, she has not given them to the police as she was not able to go to the police station. She denied the suggestion that the said love letters and the photographs were created for the purpose of this case. She does not know to which number she received the phone call. She denied the suggestion that after the incident they went to the spot after 7.00 a.m.; that accused has not at all given physical and mental cruel treatment to the deceased nor insisted her to give divorce as otherwise he would consume poison or else she has to consume poison and die. She admitted as true that in the name of the accused and her daughter there is a joint account at Gowribidanur, SBM bank and there was an ATM card also. She denied further suggestion that as her daughter and the accused loved each other and as her daughter went out of the house and married the accused against their will and because of that reason they have given false complaint against the accused and giving false evidence. 29

16. P.W.8 C.A.Nagaraju deposed in his evidence in the examination-in-chief that on 8.8.2009 morning at 7.45 a.m. while he was coming to Madanahalli from Gowribidanur, he saw people gathered, when he went and saw one women was lying dead on the railway track and after going to the railway station, he informed the station master about the same. The station master asked him to give it in writing and again he had been to the spot and when verified he came to know that deceased is Anitha of his village and she is the second daughter of P.W.7 Nagarathnamma. Marriage of Anitha with Rajashekarareddy was performed about 11 years back and couples were having two children. After the marriage the accused started to have illicit connection with one Susheelamma of Mallenahalli and he was giving ill-treatment to the deceased. In that connection there was a panchayath. He has also attended the said panchayath. The accused was telling the deceased that she is not having fair complexion and that he is going to marry Susheelamma of Mallenahalli and insisted the deceased to give divorce and it is the main reason for the death of Anitha. In the cross- examination he has deposed that when he saw the people gathered near the railway line, the relatives of the deceased were not present, at that 30 time, he did not go close to the dead body, but saw the same from a distance of 10-12ft. He came to know about the illicit connection of accused with Susheelamma of Mallenahalli and accused giving ill- treatment to Anitha when he went before the panchayath. In the panchayath, Ramachandra reddy, elder brother of the deceased, mother Rathnamma and elder sister Aruna and the senior uncle of the deceased were present. He denied the suggestion that even though he had been to panchayath, he has not advised anybody. He denied further suggestion that in the panchayath some other persons were there and he had not gone to the said panchayath and no such panchayath was held. He denied the suggestion that before the death of Anitha accused never told her that she is not a fair looking lady and he is going to marry Susheelamma and insisted Anitha to give divorce otherwise he will kill her children. He denied further suggestion that by taking money he is giving false evidence.

17. P.W.9 Hanumanthareddy deposed in his evidence that on 8.8.2009 at 8.00 a.m. he went near Madhavnagar railway track where the deadbody of Anitha was lying. Police conducted spot mahazar as per 31 Ex.P7. Ex.P7a is his signature. He has deposed that he has seen the accused present before the Court. Anitha and Rajashekarreddy were having one male and one female children. The accused Rajashekarreddy was having illicit connection with Susheelamma of Mallenahalli village and he intended to have second marriage with her and as such, was giving physical and mental harassment to the deceased and thereby abetted the death of Anitha. On 23.8.2008 panchayath was held in the house of P.W.7. From the side of the accused one Prakashreddy and Srinivasreddy were present and himself, Balakrishnareddy, C..Narasimhamurthy, the accused, Anitha and her family members were present. They all advised accused that it is not correct to have illicit connection when he is having wife and two children and he has to look after them properly. Accused told before them that he will discontinue the illicit relation and he will look after wife and children properly and he executed the document as per Ex.P2. His signature is Ex.P2(e). He has deposed that at the time of inquest mahazar, police have seized two gold chains, one pair of gold bangles, three finger rings, one pair of gold studs, two silver chains and silver toe rings. In the cross-examination, he has deposed that Anitha is not his 32 relative. He has denied the suggestion that Ramachandrareddy the elder brother of the deceased is his classmate. He denied the suggestion that he had not at all been to the marriage of accused and Anitha, so also, the parents of Anitha also not attended the marriage. He denied the suggestion that parents of Anitha were not agreeable to her marriage with accused. Accused and deceased stayed at Madanahalli for six months and not for 2 or 3 months. It is true that on 10.4.2008 an amount of Rs.34,000/- was drawn from the account of Anitha. Witness volunteered and deposed that as the mother of the accused wanted to purchase cows and asked the amount with Anitha, she has drawn the amount. PW-9 denied the suggestion that Anitha has not issued the cheque for the purchase of cows and he is deposing falsely. While writing Ex.P-2, accused and Anitha were present but parents of Anitha were not present, from the side of the accused Srirama Reddy and Prakash Reddy were present. Prakash Reddy is not the elder brother of Anitha. For about 2 hours the panchayat was held, accused dictated the contents of Ex.P-2. Ex.P-2(a)-signature is not the signature of Rajashekar Reddy. The signature of the accused on plea and signature 33 at P-2(a) are not tallying each other. He denied the suggestion that there was no illicit connection between Susheelama and accused.

In the cross examination, PW-9 has deposed that after advising the accused for the first time, six months thereafter, he advised second time. Again after four months and thereafter, after three months and thereafter, after two months he advised the accused. Narasimhamurthy-PW-13 was present in the panchayat. He denied the suggestion that at no time he met the accused nor advised the accused. He has denied the further suggestion that he does not know anything about the personal life of accused and Anitha, and as the repayment of the loan amount was insisted on him he is giving false evidence.

18. PW-10-Usha, who is the daughter of the accused and deceased, deposed in her evidence in the examination-in-chief that accused is her father and Anitha is her mother. Everyday she used to go to the school from the house of her grand mother, so also her brother Suhas. Her father is serving in the military, hence, she was left in the house of her grand mother. Whenever there was holiday for the school she used to go to her father and mother. She went to Hissara 34 and Jammu & Kashmir and she was staying with her parents. At that time her father was abusing her mother in vulgar words and he was assaulting her mother. Her father was not looking after her mother properly, her father was consuming alcohol and used to come to the house by consuming alcohol. Even in the house also he used to consume alcohol and he used to talk with other women. Her mother was of black complexion and whenever her father coming to the house in a drunken state, he was picking-up quarrel with her mother and abusing that she is not having fair complexion. He is going to have the second marriage and insisting her to give divorce. In that connection, he was giving ill-treatment and harassment to her. During holidays her mother and her father used to come to her grand mother's house and at that time her mother was telling about the ill-treatment to her grand mother. She was also informing over phone, even after coming back to the house of her grand mother after the closure of the vacation/holiday. She also used to tell about the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to Anitha by the accused, before her grand mother. In the year 2009, accused transferred from Hissar to Bengaluru. He was staying in the rented house at Madanahalli, the rented house was arranged by her 35 grand mother. Her father used to come to the house at Madanahalli for every 15-20 days and at that time he used to come to the house in a drunken state and insisting her mother to give divorce. He used to talk over the phone with Susheela, Asha, Anitha and Siresh, at that time he was abusing and insulting the deceased stating that those women are fair looking and she is dull, always she used to be in the house and not coming outside, at that time her mother was weeping, embracing her brother and telling they have to study well. She was also telling to her that she has to study well and her father will not look after her properly. Her mother was preparing for CET. On 07.08.2009 at 7.30 p.m. her father came to the house consuming alcohol, at that time herself and her mother were studying and her father abused her mother in Telugu language, kicked on her stomach, pulled her hair and when she went for the rescue of her mother, her father pushed her, she fell down and started to weep and slept. On the same night at 3.00 a.m. there was galata in the house in between her father and mother; she woke-up hearing the same and she saw her father assaulting her mother. He was pulling her, kicking with the legs and abusing her in filthy language. 36 When it became untolerable, her mother got herself relieved; opening the door of the house, she ran out and her father chased her.

In the further examination-in-chief she has also deposed that she came out of the house and saw her father assaulting her mother, abusing her in vulgar words and pulling her hair and assaulting her. Her mother ran away towards the main road and her father also chased her. After half an hour, her father came back to the house and took herself and her brother stating that her mother is there. They went towards the railway lines. In the mean time, her aunt Aruna, her grand mother Nagarathnamma, her bother-in-law Ramu and others also came there. Herself and her brother get relieved from her father and went towards her grand mother. They saw the dead body of her mother. Her father is responsible for the death of her mother. On the previous night her father came to the house consuming alcohol, picked-up quarrel, assaulted her mother and gave ill-treatment and sent her out of the house and also chased her.

In the cross-examination PW-10 has deposed that when her father transferred to Bengaluru he did not brought the house-hold articles to Bengaluru, but took them to Chikakurgod. Since from the 37 beginning she is staying with her grand mother. After transfer of her father to Bengaluru her mother was staying at Madhavanagar in Gowribidanur. Her father used to come to the house once in 15-20 days and he used to stay for 2-3 days, but she denied the suggestion that at that time she used to stay in the house of her grand mother. After her mother started to reside at Madhavanagar, she was also staying with her mother and not with her grand mother. There is a distance of 700 feet from their house to the place where her mother was found lying dead. When she saw the dead body of her mother it was 3.30 a.m. When Police came to the spot, neighbouring people gathered there. She denied the suggestion that she is giving false evidence against the accused, as tutored by her aunt and her advocate brother-in-law and her grand mother.

19. PW-11-Ashwathappa has deposed in his evidence that he know the accused Rajashekar Reddy and deceased Anitha. On 08.08.2009 early morning at 3.00 or 3.30 a.m. there was a crying sound of a female in a loud voice, he woke-up and came out and he saw the galata, which was going on infront of the house of the accused; at that 38 time accused was assaulting his wife Anitha. When he went to the rescue, in the mean time, Anitha got herself relieved and ran away towards western direction and accused also ran away behind her. Assuming that it is the quarrel between the husband and wife, he did not follow them and went back to the house and slept. At 6.00 a.m. when he woke up, the neighbours were talking that Anitha was lying dead on the railway line and he went and saw the dead body of Anitha. The mental and physical ill-treatment given by the accused to Anitha is the main reason for her death. When police enquired, he gave his statement before the police. When he went to the spot, about 50-60 people were gathered and Police were investigating the matter and were enquiring the people gathered there, about the death of Anitha. He denied the suggestion that in his statement before the Police he has not stated that at about 3.00 to 3.30 a.m. accused was quarreling with Anitha and he woke-up and saw accused assaulting Anitha and Anitha getting relieved from the accused, ran away towards western side.

20. PW-12-Shivaram, deposed in his evidence in the examination-in-chief that since four years earlier to the incident he was 39 working as Porter in the railway station. About two years back Yeshwantpur Police called him to the Police Station and one Jakeer also came there and Nagarathnamma was sitting in the Police Station. Nagarathnamma gave love letter, ATM Card, photos and the undertaking letter and the Police have seized them under the mahazar Ex.P-6 and P-6(b) is his signature.

In the cross-examination PW-12 has deposed that while giving the statement before the Police he has not stated that Jakeer was also present. Railway Police have recorded his statement. He denied the suggestion that though Nagarathnamma has not produced any documents, even then, at the instance of Yeshwantpur Railway Police, he is giving false evidence. He denied further suggestion that Nagarathnamma has not produced any documents before the Police in the presence of himself and Jakeer nor drawn the Ex.P-6.

21. P.W.13 Narasimhamurthy has deposed in his evidence that he knows Nagarathnamma and his family members so also accused Rajashekara Reddy. Anitha's marriage was performed with the accused. on 23.8.2008. Nagarathnamma called him to her house for the 40 panchayath in respect of her daughter and accused Rajashekara Reddy. At that time, the accused, Srinivas Reddy of Halaganahalli, and H.N.Prakash Reddy of Marulur village, Balakrishna Reddy, C.N. Hanumantha Reddy, Anitha, Ramachandra Reddy, Nagarathnamma, the mother of Anitha and C.S. Ramachandra Reddy, the son of Nagarathnamma, Aruna, the daughter of Nagarathnamma, were present. In the said panchayat, accused Rajashekara Reddy admitted his wrongs and promised that henceforth he will not give ill treatment to Anitha and he will discontinue his illicit connection with Susheelamma and in that connection, he executed the document Ex.P.2 and his signature is P.2(b). In the panchayat, the accused also told Nagarathnamma not to give complaint against him otherwise, he will loose his job. He has deposed that in his presence, Nagarathnamma also produced some documents before the police. There was one letter written by Susheelamma to Rajashekara Reddy consisting of six pages. The police have seized the very document under the mahazar Ex.P.8.

In the cross examination, he has deposed that on 18.9.2009 in between 2.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m., mahazar was drawn in Mallenahalli and from Susheelamma, the police have seized some documents. 41 Susheelamma gave those documents to him and he put those documents in one cover and gave to the police. He denied the suggestion that at the instance of Nagarathanamma, he is giving the false evidence that Yeshwanthpura Railway Police have seized some documents from the house of Susheelamma.

22. P.W.14 Susheelamma has deposed in her evidence in the examination in chief that ten months earlier to giving her statement, her marriage was performed with one Ramappa. While giving statement, before the police, she was pregnant. On 25.8.2009, she gave birth to a male child. On 18.9.2009 at about 2.00 p.m., the police personnel by name Chikkanna and Malleshappa came along with Manjunath Reddy and Narasimhamurthy to her house and they enquired about illicit connection between herself and Rajashekara Reddy. She told before the police that accused started to love her and told that he will marry her. Once the accused came to her house also and even he told her mother that he will marry Susheelamma. In the year 2008, she was studying in Savitha Maharshi college in B.Ed. course, Sanjay Nagar Bengaluru and she was staying in the hostel. Once the accused came to 42 the hostel and told her that if she did not marry him, he will put an end to his life by coming into contact with the live electric wire. Thereafter, there was love affair between herself and accused and there was also bodily contact between them. It continued for a period of two years. When she completed B.Ed. course, the accused took one house at Mahadevapur for her and he used to come to the said house often and he used to talk over the mobile phone also. But she came to know from others that accused had already got married and he had children and when she enquired with the accused about the same, he told that he is a military man, for the sake of her, he will finish off his wife and children. Panchayat was also held once and the accused at one time told her that he will take her to Delhi and even obtained the travel ticket in advance. He used to send money through money order and there is a joint account in the name of herself and the accused in the SBI, Hebbala but the passbook was not given to her. She gave the M.O. slips, M.O. forms, M.O. receipts with note book, one photo, one love letter written by the accused, railway ticket and love letter written by her to accused, to the police. Police have seized those documents under 43 Ex.P.20 and P.20(a) is her signature. Narasimhamurthy, Manjunatha Reddy, Chikkanna and Malleshappa also signed the mahazar.

In the cross examination, P.W.14 deposed that the first visit of herself and accused was at Gowribidanur when she was studying in final year B.A. and while going to computer class. The accused himself met her. Before coming to her house, 3-4 times, accused met her on the way. When the accused called her 2-3 times, she was not willing to go with him. But he insisted her. When the accused pressurized her to marry him, she did not give complaint against him. She has also not lodged the complaint against the accused for taking the rental house for her stay in the said house and for having forcible sexual intercourse with her. The witness volunteered and deposed that as the accused promised to marry her, she did not lodge the complaint against him. After staying with the accused at Bengaluru, straightaway, she came back to her house and she discontinued her B.Ed. course in the middle. The accused kept her in Mahadevapur rented house for 5-6 months. She knows the address of the said house. But she does not know the number of the said house. The owner of the said house was one Parvathamma. The accused used to come to the said house every 44 month or two months. At the time of her marriage, she had not informed her in-laws about she having the physical contact with the accused. But, her relatives knew about the same. The witness volunteered and deposed that the accused himself informed her husband over phone. She denied the suggestion that accused never promised to marry her, he never met her and she had no physical contact with the accused. She denied the suggestion that the accused had not at all took rented house in Mahadevapura at Bengaluru nor was she staying in the said house nor accused used to come to the said house or he had the bodily contact with her.

23. P.W.15 Srinivasa Reddy has deposed in his evidence in the examination in chief that he knows the accused and he also knows Nagarathnamma so also Anitha, the daughter of Nagarathnamma. The couple were having two children. On 23.8.2008, accused called him to the house of Nagarathnamma to participate in the panchayat. On that day, from the side of accused, he alone went there. In the house of Nagarathnamma, Prakash Reddy, Hanumantha Reddy, Narasimhamurthy, Nagarathnamma and her family members were 45 present. Accused requested before the panchayatdars that he may be given an opportunity to lead his marital life and accordingly executed undertaking as per Ex.P.2. The contents of Ex.P.2 are stated by accused himself and Hanumanthareddy wrote the contents. Accused has signed the same.

In the cross examination, P.W.15 denied the suggestion that before the Yeshwanthapura Railway Police, he has not stated in his statement that accused narrated the contents of Ex.P.2 and Hanumantha Reddy wrote the same.

24. P.W.16 Nanjundaiah has deposed in his evidence in the examination in chief that on 5.9.2009, when he was on duty, Nagarathnamma came to the Bengaluru Rural Police Station and told that she wanted to see the PSI. Then PSI told him to conduct the mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses. Shivaram and Zakir Mohammed were secured and in the presence of panch witnesses, Ex.P.2, two love letters, three ATM Cards Xerox, five photos were seized under Ex.P.6.

In the cross examination, he deposed the documents seized were not at all sealed when they were taken to their possession nor obtained the signature of the investigating officer.

25. P.W.17 H.V. Malleshappa has deposed in his evidence in the examination in chief that he is working in the Railway Police Department since 30 years. PSI Chikkannavar asked him to assist him in the investigation. On 18.9.2009 he went to Gowribidanur to the house of Nagarathnamma and recorded the statement of Usha Reddy, the daughter of Anitha. Then along with panchas Manjunath Reddy and Narasimhamurthy, the SI Chikkanna went to Mallenahalli to the house of one Gangaiah and enquired with Susheelamma and recorded her statement and seized the documents produced by her drawing a mahazar Ex.P.20. The documents are Exs.P.5 to P.19, P.25 and P.26.

In the cross examination, he has deposed that PSI Bhaskar was the investigating officer in the case and Chikkanna ASI conducted the part of investigation. On that day, investigating officer Bhaskar had not at all come along with them. The documents produced by Susheelamma were in English, Kannada and Telugu language. But the documents 47 were not sealed. He denied the suggestion that himself, ASI and Susheelamma together created the false documents and no such seizure mahazar was conducted.

26. P.W.18 Chikkanna has deposed in his evidence in the examination in chief that on 17.9.2009, the SHO Bhaskar issued one memo to him informing him to go to Chikkakurugodu in Gowribidanaur taluk and record the statement of Usha Reddy so also to record the statement of Susheelamma of Mallenahalli and if the documents are produced, to seize the documents. The said order is Ex.P.28. Accordingly, he secured Malleshappa and went to Chikkakurugodu and recorded the statement of Usha. Then he secured the Panchas - Manjunatha Reddy and Narasimhamurthy and went to the house of Susheelamma at Mallenahalli and enquired with her and seized eight documents under mahazar Ex.P.20.

In the cross examination, P.W.18 denied the suggestion that he was not at all having the authority to seize the documents produced by Susheelamma and at the instance of his higher officers, he is giving the false evidence.

27. P.W.19 Zeenath M has deposed in his evidence in the examination in chief that on 24.10.2009, he received and opened one cover sent by Bengaluru Rural Railway Police and there was one writing containing six pages. The investigating officer marked it as 'C' and 'D'. It was also marked as Q.1 to Q.10. In the said cover, there was one long note book containing the writings of Susheelamma and it was marked as 'A'. It was also marked as D.1 to D.32. It was sought that whether the writings of the two documents were of the same person. He examined and gave his opinion that those two writings were of the same person. He has also assigned the reasons to come to such conclusion.

28. PW-20 Dr.Tejavathi has deposed in her evidence that on 8.09.2009 from 3.30 to 4.30 p.m. she has conducted PM examination over the dead body of Anitha and has issued the PM report, which is marked as per Ex.P-32. According to her examination, deceased died because of the injury to the head and to the brain.

In the cross-examination, PW-20 has deposed that the injuries on the dead body were of mechanical in nature. It cannot be said that the lacerated wounds on the dead body were caused by the sharp edged weapon. She cannot say exactly the time of sustaining those injuries prior to conducting the PM examination, but she can tell approximately.

29. PW-21 M.Bhaskar is the Investigating Officer in this case. In his examination-in-chief he has deposed in detail about the investigation that he has conducted in the case.

In the cross-examination PW-21 has deposed that on 8.08.2009 in the morning at about 8.30 a.m. Initially he came to know about lying of the dead body of the female on the railway track from Station House Master, Doddaballapur. Immediately, he went to the spot along with Railway Station Master, Doddaballapur. When they reached the spot it was 10.00 a.m. Before he went to the spot, he did not know exactly who is the accused in the case and before going to the spot, case was registered in UDR. He verified the spot. While conducting the inquest mahazar he included the spot mahazar also. When he went to the said place people of Madhavanagar were present and he recorded the 50 statements of Srinivas, Mustaq and daughter-Usha Reddy, but he again said that he has not recorded their statements, but orally enquired with them. (The witness shown the CD to the trial Court and Trial Court opined that it appears that the statement of Usha Reddy and the other witness were recorded). He went to the house of the deceased but it was under lock. He recorded the statement of the owner of the house Mustaq Ahmed, Srinivas and Ashwathappa. He denied the suggestion that at the time of inquest mahazar Ramachandra Reddy, Usha Reddy have not given their statements. He denied the suggestion that none of the witnesses gave any information about this case, but he further deposed that thereafter, upto 17.08.2009 the witnesses have not furnished the information. He denied the suggestion that he has falsely created the love letter said to have been written by Susheelamma to the accused, so also the photograph of the accused. He denied the suggestion that none of the documents seized from Susheelamma are related to the accused. On 05.09.2009 he seized Ex.P-2, P-26 and P-27 under the mahazar Ex.P-6. He denied the suggestion that he has not recorded the statement of Nanjundaiah, Jakeerahamed and Shivaraj on 51 8.8.2009. He denied the suggestion that the documents sent for FSL examination mentioned in Ex.P-31 are not at all related to the accused.

30. Perusing the entire materials both oral and documentary, it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant-accused even after marrying deceased Anitha was having extra marital relationship with P.W.14 Susheelamma and he wanted to marry her and in that connection he was giving ill-treatment and harassment to deceased Anitha. To prove this fact, prosecution has examined the mother of the deceased Nagarathnamma, sister Aruna, brother Ramachandrareddy so also, examined P.W.4 Venkatappa, P.W.11 Ashwathappa and P.W.14 Susheelamma. It is the evidence of Nagarathnamma, the mother and her family members that accused used to give ill-treatment to deceased, he was assaulting her and he was having extra-marital relation with one Susheelamma and that she used to inform the same over phone and also personally whenever she used to come to the house of her mother. About their evidence I have already made detail reference, wherein they have clearly stated in their evidence about the extra-marital relationship of appellant-accused with Susheelamma P.W.14. Even in the cross- 52 examination, nothing has been elicited from the defence so as to disbelieve their version about what they have stated in the examination- in-chief.

31. P.W.14 Susheelamma is of the village Mallenahalli. P.W.4 Venkatappa of the said village has also been examined by the prosecution. He has deposed before the Court that the appellant- accused used to come to the house of Susheelamma and for about two to three times he has seen accused coming to the house of Susheelamma. Even in his cross-examination when it was suggested that accused was never going to the house of Susheelamma at Mallenahalli and he is deposing falsely, the said suggestion has been denied by the witness. Apart from that the very Susheelamma had been examined before the Court as PW.14 and she also deposed in her evidence that in the year 2006-07 the accused came in contact with her and he used to talk to her and thereafterwards, he used to come to her house and he was telling Susheelamma that he wanted to marry her. Her evidence goes to show that he told before the parents of said Susheelamma that he is going to marry her but for that the mother of 53 Susheelamma told the accused that he belongs to upper community and they belong to bhovi community. It is also deposed by P.W.14- Susheelamma that the accused took one house on rental basis at Mahadevapura at Bangalore and made her to stay in the said house and he was also coming to the said house. They had bodily contact. It is also her evidence that he promised her that he will marry her, but subsequently, through others when she came to know that he is already married having wife and children and when this was brought to the notice of the accused he told her that he is a military man and he will kill his wife and children and marry her. She has produced some documents, love letters, money order receipts, money order forms and money order slips, train reservation tickets and the leave application of the appellant which were seized by the investigating officer under Ex.P20. The contention of the appellant is that the production of those documents before the investigating officer is at a belated stage and they are created documents. But only on this ground those materials cannot be rejected by Court when they are relevant to the case on hand. Even the photograph of the said Susheelamma with the appellant-accused is produced. It is not his cross-examination to P.W.14 Susheelamma that 54 she committed theft of those documents and hence those documents are in her custody. It was simply suggested that those documents were created for the purpose of this case, which suggestion has been denied by the witness. Therefore, looking to all these materials placed on record, they clearly show that the appellant-accused was having extra marital relationship with P.W.14 Susheelamma.

32. With regard to the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased by the appellant is concerned, Nagarathnamma, the mother, Aruna, the sister and brother Ramachandrareddy, Ushareddy, the daughter of the deceased and appellant and P.W.11 one Ashwathappa who was the neighbour of the appellant and deceased, all have spoken about the ill- treatment and harassment given by the appellant to the deceased. Their evidence shows that because of his illicit relationship with Susheelamma the appellant-accused was ill-treating his wife Anitha and he was telling her that she is having black complexion, not fair looking, Susheelamma is a fair looking lady, he want to marry her and he was insisting Anitha to give divorce to him as otherwise, he will consume poison or else she has to consume poison and die. During the night of the incident on 55 7.8.2009 the deceased was staying with the appellant-accused along with his two children in the same house and the evidence of the daughter Ushareddy shows that on 7.8.2009 appellant-accused came to the house at about 7.30 p.m. consuming alcohol and her mother deceased Anitha was preparing for the CET exam and he picked up quarrel with her, pulled her hair, kicked her on her stomach and when daughter Ushareddy went to the rescue of her mother, appellant-accused pushed her, due to which, she fell and then she went to sleep. It is also her evidence that in the early morning at about 3.00 a.m. she woke up hearing the galata between the couples and saw the accused was assaulting the deceased and she get relieved from his hands, deceased by opening the door went outside the house and accused chased her. The trial Court has observed the demeanor of the child that while recording the evidence about the cruel treatment on her mother, the witness was weeping in the witness box. The evidence of P.W.11 Ashwathappa, the neighbour goes to show that he is an eyewitness to the incident and that his house is situated in front of appellant's accused house and at 3.00 or 3.30 a.m. on 8.8.2009, he saw appellant assaulting his wife Anitha and because of the assault, she escaped and ran away and the accused 56 chased her. His evidence shows that thinking that it is a quarrel between husband and wife, he went back to his house and slept. It is the contention of the defence that the conduct of this witness that he has went back to the house and slept shows that he is not a eyewitness as he has not went to rescue either Anitha nor he tried to inform the same to her relatives. But only on that ground the evidence of P.W.11 Ashwathappa cannot be rejected because a witness may react in one way compared to the others and only on the ground that he went back to his house and slept does not mean that he has not seen the incident.

33. The evidence of Ushareddy, the daughter of the deceased and accused is worth believable and inspires the confidence of the Court. Though it was suggested that she has been tutored by her grandmother Nagarathnamma and her family members, but she has denied the said suggestion and there is nothing on record to show that she is a tutored witness.

34. With regard to the ill-treatment meted out to deceased Anitha by the appellant, the cumulative effect of the entire material on 57 record will have to be taken into consideration, more particularly, the evidence of P.W.14-Susheelamma and the documents she has produced under Ex.P20 and the evidence of P.W.4-Venkatappa. Nagarathnamma also produced documents before the Investigating Officer under the mahazar Ex.P6 i.e., the undertaking letter Ex.P2. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Anitha was ill-treated and appellant has not corrected himself in spite of repeated advice given by the elders and family members. Nagarathnamma, the mother of the deceased when decided to give complaint against appellant-accused he requested her not to give the complaint, otherwise, he will lose his job and in that connection, the panchayath was held, he executed the document as per Ex.P2, which is a undertaking that he will look after Anitha properly and will correct himself and will not give any sort of ill-treatment. Though it is contended by the appellant-accused that he has not at all executed such undertaking letter, but looking to the evidence of prosecution witnesses who are the signatories to the said document which I have already made reference above, it clearly shows that it was executed by the appellant-accused. If the letter Ex.P2 is appreciated looking to the other materials i.e., his extra marital relationship with 58 P.W.14-Susheelamma, it probabalises the case of the prosecution that he has executed Ex.P2 document.

35. The main contention of the defence is that the statement of witnesses are not recorded at the earliest point of time, there is a delay in recording their statement, there is a delay in production of documents before the Investigating Officer and there are omissions with regard to the material facts. As I have already observed above the materials either oral or documentary are to be read as a whole and the cumulative effect emerging out of the said material will have to be considered and the material should not be appreciated in isolation. Looking to the entire material on record, it clearly shows that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. With regard to illicit connection of the appellant with Susheelamma and because of that reason he was giving ill-treatment to the deceased has been established by way of oral and documentary evidence and such material is consistent, cogent and reliable. In this regard I am also referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 SCC (Cri.) 222 in the case of Leela Ram (dead) through Duli 59 Chand Vs. State of Haryana and another wherein in Headnote B, C, D and F their lordship's have laid down the proposition as under:

B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 156, 157 and 159 - Investigation - Irregularity or illegality during - Effect if any - Held, does; not constitute a ground to reject the prosecution case - Criminal Trial

- Investigation (Para 8) C. Criminal Trial - Corroboration - In criminal cases corroboration with mathematical niceties should not be expected D. Criminal Trial - Appreciation of evidence - Reaction of eyewitnesses - Different witnesses, held, react differently - There cannot be any set pattern of or a rule of human reaction on the basis of non- conformity wherewith a piece of evidence may be discarded - Penal Code, 1860, S. 302 - Appreciation of evidence - Reaction of eyewitnesses E. ...... ........ .......

F. Criminal Trial - Witnesses - Related witness

- Testimony of - Evidentiary value - Murder case - Son and brother-in-law of the deceased testifying that shots were fired by the accused on the deceased -In absence of some other factor to discredit the said witnesses, their evidence, held, could not be rejected merely on the ground that they were interested witnesses - interested witness As per the principle enunciated in the said decision, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be rejected because of some lapses on the part 60 of the Investigating Officer in conducting the investigation while collecting the materials in the case. It is no doubt true that there are minor discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which are bound to be there. But those discrepancies and contradictions will not go to the root of the case, so as to take away the entire case of the prosecution.

36. It has come on record with positive evidence that on the date of the incident the couples were living in the same house along with their children and when that is so and according to him he has not given ill-treatment to the deceased and he never abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased then it is his responsibility to explain as to how the incident has taken place since there is satisfactory evidence to the effect that deceased was meted out to ill-treatment in the house itself.

37. Perusing the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses before the trial Court it is seen that the accused has not offered any explanation as to how the incident has taken place except saying that he has not ill-treated her and he was residing separately. 61 But, before this Court in this appeal for the first time he has come up with a different explanation. In this regard, the written submission in the form of synopsis filed under section 314 of Cr.P.C. dated 21.2.2015 is produced, wherein the appellant accused took the contention that in Canteen Stores Department unit, one Ramesh Bendy was working and he was known to himself and his wife. His wife Anitha used to go to the canteen for purchasing the provisions. Because of that reason, Ramesh Bendy was calling his wife as sister and he was like his family friend. Ramesh Bendy used to come to his house often. On 7.8.2009, the appellant accused was sleeping at 1.30 p.m. and in the evening at 4.00 p.m., his wife came back to the house and at 7.30 p.m., she prepared payasa (sweet). Himself and children together had the meals and his wife gave the payasa to her children. She went inside to bring payasa for him and when she was putting the milk in another utensil, his daughter asked Anitha as to why she was putting the milk to payasa. For that, Anitha told her daughter that her father i.e., the appellant herein, did not like too much sweet. Hence, she is putting milk to the payasa. As the appellant accused was not suspecting, he took payasa and there was burning sensation to him in his eyes. Anitha asked him 62 to sleep early and told that she will keep the pieces of potato on the eyes so that it will be cooled down. When he slept, immediately, he got the sound sleep. Morning at 4.10 a.m., the appellant accused came to know that his wife Anitha and Ramesh Bendy both were tying lower limbs with the towel, and when he attempted to get relieved from them, his wife caught hold his upper limbs tightly. However, he succeeded in getting relieved from them and threw the pillow from his both the hands. Then Ramesh Bendy told Anitha to bring the knife and Anitha brought and gave knife to Ramesh Bendy, who made an attempt to commit murder of the appellant accused. However, he escaped and in that process, the knife came in contact on his face and because of that reason, there was bleeding injury on the left cheek. When he caught hold the hands of Ramesh Bendy, Ramesh Bendy told Anitha to bite appellant accused. Accordingly, she bit his right hand and caused the bleeding injuries. Then, thinking that they may kill him, the appellant accused opened the door of the house and ran downwards crying. The neighbours gathered. At that time, it seems his wife went out of the house as told by the neighbours, but he did not come to know about the same.

38. The aforesaid explanation offered by the appellant now, i.e., on 21.2.2015 is nearly after the lapse of six years from the date of the incident. Regarding this defence, there is no whisper before the trial Court during the course of the trial. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that only with an intention to escape from the clutches of law, he has come up with this explanation. Therefore, no importance can be attached to the said explanation. If it was the real fact, even after conclusion of the trial, the appellant accused has been examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and as per question No.154, he was specifically asked as to whether he wanted to say anything in the matter and he answered 'no'. Under these circumstances, it goes to show that now the appellant accused has come up with this false explanation.

39. The appellant accused has also produced 96 documents along with his letter dated 25.5.2015 addressed to Registrar (Judicial) of this Office. The said documents were sent by the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Central Prison, Bengaluru along with covering letter dated 26/27.5.2015.. These documents were also not produced during the course of the trial before the trial Court and no valid reasons are 64 also made out as to why he is producing all these voluminous documents for the first time before the appellate court and why they were not produced before the trial Court. Hence, at this stage, the documents cannot be taken into consideration.

40. I have also perused the decisions relied upon by the learned Amicus Curiae filed along with the memo dated 25.2.2015 and 26.6.2015 which are referred above. Looking to the facts and circumstances in the case on hand and also the facts and circumstances in the said reported decisions, they will not come to the aid and assistance of the appellant accused. Looking to the materials placed on record, they would clearly show that after marrying the deceased Anitha, and after having two children, the appellant accused developed illicit intimacy with P.W.14 Susheelamma and after making promise to the said Susheelamma that he is going to marry her, had the bodily contact with her, which is clear from the evidence of P.W.14 Susheelamma so also the documents she has produced. I am of the opinion that the appellant accused is not entitled for remission of the sentence. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the 65 sentence imposed by the trial Court is just and reasonable and it is proportionate.

41. In view of my above discussion, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has taken into consideration each and every aspect of the matter, both oral and documentary, and has rightly come to the conclusion in convicting the appellant accused. I do not find any illegality in the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court. There is no merit in the appeal and it does not call for interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae Sri Vijay Kumar Prakash is placed on record. Registry is directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- to the learned Amicus Curiae as honorarium for his assistance.

Sd/-

JUDGE Cs/Bkp/Bsr/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court