State of Karnataka vs Jagadish and Others

P.D. Waingankar, J.—This appeal by the State is against the acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC in S.C. No. 515/2007 on the file of Fast Track Court-VI, Bangalore City by judgment and order dated: 2.8.2010.

The case of the prosecution is that accused No. 1 Jagadish and PW-3- Indramma were loving each other for about three years. But accused No. 1 was not ready to marry PW-3. As such, deceased-brother-in-law of PW-3 brought accused No. 1 and performed the marriage of accused No. 1 with PW-3 against his wish on 19.5.2006 at Ranganatha Temple, Kunigal. During the marriage, photos and videos were taken. The accused No. 1 was not happy with the conduct of the deceased in performing his marriage. Though marriage was performed, accused No. 1 deserted PW-3 on the date of the marriage and left PW-3 in her parental house at Chikkamagalur. Since accused No. 1 was disgruntled with the marriage and the conduct of deceased in arranging his marriage, accused No. 1 instigated accused Nos. 2 to 8 to demand a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs from the deceased and to bring photographs and videos that were taken during the marriage. At the instigation of accused No. 1, accused Nos. 2 to 8 approached the deceased on two to three occasions and demanded the photographs and videos and cash amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. They also threatened him of dire consequences, if their demands are not fulfilled. Annoyed by the same, on 31.5.2006 at about 1.00 p.m. deceased Rajendra committed suicide while he was alone in his house. His cousin Basavaraj lodged a UDR complaint before Rajagopalanagar police station on the same day, stating therein that on account of financial dispute between deceased and his business partners, viz., Manju, Gangadhar, Rajenda, Dorai, Rajashekar, Ganesh and Venu and also in connection with the marriage of PW-3, deceased committed suicide. Next day of the incident, i.e., on 1.6.2006, one Lokesh gave another complaint as per Ex-P1 stating therein that because of the harassment and cruelty meted out to deceased by all the accused, deceased was driven to commit suicide. On the strength of Ex-P1, Rajagopalanagar police registered a case against all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC in Cr. No. 214/2006. During the course of investigation, the police seized a notebook, wherein the deceased said to have written the cause which led him to commit suicide as per Ex-P2. The police recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against accused Nos. 1 to 8 for the aforesaid offences.

The accused having pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them, the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as 10 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-10, marked Exs-P1 to P13 apart from M.O. 1 rope. The accused were examined as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge upon hearing the arguments and on appreciation of evidence, has recorded a finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against all the accused which resulted in acquittal of all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC by the impugned judgment and order.

Aggrieved by the acquittal of all the accused, the State has come up in this appeal.

I have heard learned Government Pleader Sri. Chetan Desai for the State and learned counsel Sri. Omkaresha appearing for the respondents-accused. Perused the records including the judgment of the court below.

Upon hearing the arguments and upon perusal of the records, the point that would arise for my determination is:--

"Whether the Trial Court is justified in acquitting all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC?" 7. As I have already stated, in order to prove the charges, the prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses as PWs-1 to 10.

PW-1 is one Lokesh-cousin brother of deceased Rajendra, who lodged the complaint as per Ex-P1, on the strength of which, crime came to be registered and charge-sheet came to be filed upon completion of investigation.

PW-2 Bhagyamma is none other than wife of deceased Rajendra. She has given her evidence in conformity with the contents of Ex-P1-complaint, that is to say, at the instigation of accused No. 1, accused Nos. 2 to 8 were threatening the deceased for return of the photographs and videos that were taken during the marriage of accused No. 1 with PW-3 and also the demand for Rs. 2.00 lakhs, which ultimately driven her husband to commit suicide.

PW-3 Indramma is the sister-in-law of the deceased. Her marriage was performed with accused No. 1 by the deceased against the will and wish of accused No. 1. She is younger sister of PW-2-wife of the deceased.

PW-4-Gangappa is the pancha to the spot panchanama whereunder Ex-P2 the notebook said to have been written by the deceased was seized. A perusal of Ex-P2 would go to show the reasons which led to commission of suicide by the deceased are shown as threat by accused Nos. 1 to 8.

PW-5 -Basavaraj is also cousin-brother of deceased Rajendra, who lodged U.D.R. complaint as per Ex-P11, wherein he has stated that on account of financial problem and in connection with the marriage of PW-3, deceased Rajendra committed suicide.

PW-6 Mahadevappa is the owner of the house, wherein deceased was residing as tenant, where he committed suicide.

PW-7 Sannappa, is the pancha to the inquest proceedings over the deadbody of deceased marked as Ex-P1.

PW-8 Dr. Devadas P.K. is the Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead-body and issued post-mortem report Ex-P12 wherein, he has opined the cause of death of deceased Rajendra as ''asphyxia''.

PW-9 Sri Ramachari is the Station House Officer of Rajagopalanagar police station, who registered the case in Crime No. 240/2006 on the strength of Ex-P1 and forwarded the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate.

PW-10 C.N. Bopaiah, Police Inspector of Rajagopalanagar police station, who investigated and filed charge-sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 8 for the offence punishable under section 306 r/w 34 IPC.

From the evaluation of evidence of all these witnesses, no-doubt, PW-2 Bhagyamma, PW-3-Indramma and PW-6 Mahadevappa have given their evidence in conformity with the contents of Ex-P1. They have spoken that deceased Rajendra arranged and performed the marriage of accused No. 1 with PW-3-his sister-in-law against the wish of accused No. 1 and annoyed by the same, accused No. 1 instigated accused Nos. 2 to 8 to approach the deceased and demand the photographs and videos that were taken during the marriage of accused No. 1 with PW-3 and also to demand an amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. They have also spoken that these accused approached the deceased on two to three occasions and they also threatened the deceased with dire consequences and thereby he committed suicide. The veracity of their evidence has to be tested with reference to Ex-P11-U.D.R. complaint lodged by one Basavaraj on the date of the incident itself. In the U.D.R complaint marked as Ex-P11, it has been stated that deceased Rajendra committed suicide in House No. 326, Kasturi layout in the house of one Mahadevappa as deceased incurred loss in the partnership business, which he was running under the name and style of ''Nanjundeshwara Traders'' at RMC Yard, Bangalore alongwith other partners viz., Manju, Gangadhar, Rajendra, Dorai, Rajashekar, Ganesh and Venu, who are none other than accused Nos. 2 to 8. If accused Nos. 2 to 8 were his partners in his business, it is impossible to imagine that his own business partners will approach him and give threat to his life in connection with the marriage of accused No. 1 with PW-3, which seems to be rather unnatural and strange. It is true that in the subsequent complaint Ex-P1 lodged by one Lokesh, the version is totally changed and a new story has been planted. Lokesh who lodged the complaint as per Ex-P1 on the next date of the incident and Basavaraj-younger brother of deceased Rajendra who lodged U.D.R complaint are close relatives of the deceased Rajendra. His two brothers have given two different versions, so as to create doubt in the mind of the Court as to the veracity of the case put forth by the prosecution. From the two versions, it appears that the prosecution has not come out with true facts of the case. Moreover Ex-P2 the notebook said to contain death note of deceased cannot be relied upon for the reason that the death note of deceased has not been sent to handwriting experts so as to know whether it was written by deceased or not. In the absence of the same, I have every reason to hold that said notebook Ex-P2 has been created just to build up a new story. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of evidence in its proper perspective has rightly recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused. On my re-appreciation of evidence, I am in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Court below. There is no merit in this appeal. Hence, I pass the following order:--

The appeal is dismissed.