Excerpt:As submitted by the counsel for accused persons, this evidence of P.W.1 in cross-examination falsifies his evidence that the accused persons demanded to give clothes and gold ornaments and hence, he gave the gold ornaments and clothes to the accused No.1 as dowry in the marriage of deceased with the accused No.1. On the other hand, the above referred evidence of P.W.1 shows that the gold ornaments and clothes allegedly given by the P.W.1 to the accused No.1 in the marriage of accused No.1 is as per the customs prevailing in their community. As submitted by the counsel for accused persons, if anything is given under as per the customs, it does not amount to dowry under the Act.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.W.1 And Hence vs Persons To The Deceased Is Based On … on 30 November, 2018

 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 PRESENT Sri. T.N. INAVALLY, B.A.L., LL.B., XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. S.C. No.1184/2011 BETWEEN The State of Karnataka Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru. .... COMPLAINANT (By the learned Public Prosecutor) AND 1. Umamahesh, S/o K. Muniraju, Aged about 28 years, 2. K. Muniraju, S/o late K.K. Krishnaiah, Aged about 61 years, (dead - abated) 3. Munirathnamma, W/o Muniraju, Aged about 46 years, 4. Harish Kumar, S/o K. Muniraju, Aged about 26 years, All are R/at No.5, 1st Floor, 1st A Main, Byraveshwaranagar, Nagarbhavi Main Road, Bengaluru - 560 072. .... ACCUSED PERSONS (By Sri. M.L.D., Advocate) ***** JUDGMENT

This case is the result of charge sheet filed by the complainant Police against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-Bof Indian Penal Code (‘IPC‘ for short) and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (‘the Act’ for short).

2. The prosecution was set into motion against the accused persons on the complaint of C.W.1 Harikrishna, the father of the deceased Archana (‘the deceased’ for short). The case of prosecution is that the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 was solemnized on 04.03.2010 at Krishna Convention Hall, BSK II Stage, Keresandra, Bengaluru as per Hindu rites and customs. The expenses of marriage were borne by the complainant, the C.W.1. The accused No.2 and 3 are parents-in-law and the accused No.4 is brother-in-law of the deceased. The accused persons demanded cash amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, one house site, one motor cycle, gold ornaments such as chain, bracelet, ring and suit clothes to the bridegroom and ½ kg of gold ornaments to the bride as dowry in the marriage talk. In view of the said demand made by the accused persons, the C.W.1 and his relatives agreed to give cash amount of Rs.50,000/-, one gold chain, one bracelet and one ring and suit cloths to the accused No.1 and 250 gms of gold ornaments such as long chain, chain (Kasina sara) ear stud with hangings, 3 gold rings and 4 gold bangles to the bridegroom, to which the accused persons had agreed. Accordingly, in the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 the C.W.1 gave cash amount of Rs.50,000/- and gold ornaments as agreed by him as dowry on the demand of accused persons.

3. It is also the case of prosecution that after the marriage the deceased was residing with the accused persons in PWD quarters at Magadi road, Bengaluru. After 2 months of the marriage, the accused persons subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty saying that her father did not give house site, motor cycle, cot and almirah at the time of marriage and if accused No.1 married some other lady, he would have got lakhs of rupees, car and house site as dowry and thereby the accused persons demanded the deceased to bring amount and gold ornaments as further dowry. The said fact was told by the deceased to C.W.1 and her relatives. Hence, after the marriage the C.W.1 gave one cot and one almirah to the accused No.1. Thereafter, the deceased gave birth to male child. At that time the deceased was in the house of her parents for maternity. After maternity period on 08.05.2011 the C.W.1 and his wife – C.W.9, who is mother of the deceased, took the deceased the house of accused persons situated at No.5, 1st A Main Road, Nagarbhavi Road, Basaveshwara Nagar within the jurisdiction of complainant police station. When the deceased was residing with the accused persons in the said house all the accused persons were abusing the deceased saying that her father did not give motor cycle and house site in her marriage with the accused No.1 and thereby the accused persons subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty. Thereafter on 12.06.2011 at about 8.00 a.m. the deceased, without bearing with the mental and physical cruelty meted out to her by the accused persons, committed suicide by hanging in the bedroom of the said house. Hence, the deceased died of committing suicide within 7 years of her marriage with the accused No.1 due to physical and mental cruelty of the accused persons demanding to bring more dowry. Consequently, the accused persons have committed the alleged offence.

4. As stated herein above, the prosecution was set into motion against the accused persons on the complaint of C.W.1, who is father of the deceased. The complainant police registered the case as per their Cr.No.132/2011 for the said offence and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B and Sec.3 and 4 of the Act. Accordingly case was registered against the accused persons before the concerned Magistrate.

5. At the initial stage all the accused persons were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. However, thereafter the accused No.2 to 4 were released on bail and the accused No.1 was in judicial custody. The accused persons appeared through the counsel before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate furnished copy of the charge sheet to the accused persons and hence, the provision of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. was complied with by the learned Magistrate. As the offence charge sheeted against the accused persons is exclusively triable by this Court, the learned Magistrate acting under Sec.209 of Cr.P.C. has committed the case to this Court for trial. Hence, the matter is taken up before this Court for further proceedings accordingly.

6. Earlier this case was pending before FTC-IX, Bengaluru. As stated herein above, the accused No.2 to 4 have been on bail. The accused No.1 was in judicial custody. In pursuance of service of summons, the accused No.2 to 4 appeared and the accused No.1 was brought before the FTC-IX. Thereafter, the accused No.1 has also been granted bail and hence, all the accused No.1 to 4 are on bail.

7. After hearing both the parties and on considering the relevant materials on record, the learned Presiding Officer of FTC-X, Bengaluru framed charge against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w Sec.34 of IPC, Sec.304-B r/w Sec.302 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of the Act, to which all the accused No.1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and thereby they claimed to be tried. During the trial, the case has been transferred to this Court and hence, the matter is taken up in this Court accordingly.

8. During the pendency of this case the accused No.2 is reported to be dead and hence, this case against accused No.2 is dismissed as abated.

9. In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.22. The prosecution has produced 28 documents at Exs.P.1 to P.28 and 3 properties at M.O.1 to M.O.3 in support of their case. After closing of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court has recorded the statement of accused No.1, 3 and 4 under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., in which those accused persons have denied the incriminating materials forthcoming against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as false, but they have not chosen to submit anything on their behalf. However, the accused persons have chosen to adduce defence evidence on their behalf. Accordingly, the accused No.1 has got himself examined as D.W.1. Further, the accused persons have produced documents at Exs.D.1 to D.31 in support of their defence put forth in the case.

10. Heard the argument of the learned Prosecutor and also the counsel for accused persons. 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 No.1 being husband, the accused No.3 being mother-in-law and accused No.4 being brother- in-law of the deceased, demanded and took dowry in the form of gold ornaments and also cash amount for accused No.1 at the time of her marriage with accused No.1 and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Sec.3 of the Act?

2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that after the marriage, when the deceased was residing with the accused persons, they demanded the deceased to bring additional dowry in the form of house site and motor cycle and took cot and almirah as additional dowry and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act?

3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 being husband and the accused No.3 being mother-in-law and accused No.4 being brother-in-law of the deceased with common intention subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and harassment demanding her to bring more dowry and when the deceased was residing along with them and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w Sec.34 of IPC?

4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased without bearing with the ill- treatment and harassment by the accused persons committed suicide by hanging on 12.06.2011 at about 9.45 a.m. in the house of accused persons and hence, the deceased died within 7 years from the date of her marriage due to physical and mental cruelty and ill- treatment by the accused persons and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Section 304-B r/w Sec.302 of IPC?

5. What order?

10. 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: In the negative Point No.4: In the negative Point No.5: As per final order For the following:

REASONS

11. Points No.1 to 4: All 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.

12. It is not in dispute that the accused No.1 is husband, the accused No.2 and 3 are parents-in-law and the accused No.4 is brother-in-law of the deceased. However, during the pendency of the case, the accused No.2 has died and hence, this case survives for consideration only against the accused No.1, 3 and 4. The offence charged against the accused persons is punishable under Section 498- A, 304-B r/w Sec.302 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of the Act. Hence, unless the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 being husband, the accused No.3 being mother-in-law and the accused No.4 being brother-in-law of the deceased subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty and that the accused persons demanded and took dowry from parents of the deceased in the marriage of deceased with accused No.1 and after the marriage the accused persons subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty demanding to bring more dowry and thereby took further dowry and thereafter the deceased without bearing with the ill- treatment and harassment of the accused persons as contended, died of committing suicide, no case can be made out against the accused No.1, 3 and 4 for the offence charged. In this background the evidence forthcoming from both the parties is to be assessed.

13. As stated herein above, the prosecution was set into motion against the accused persons on the complaint of C.W.1 Hari Krishna, who is father of the deceased. He has been examined as P.W.1. As pointed out by the learned Prosecutor, the P.W.1 in his evidence in chief-examination has deposed that there was marriage talk held about 2½ months earlier to the date of marriage and in the said marriage talks accused No.1 to 4 and their relatives participated. In the marriage talk the accused persons demanded one site and one motor cycle, ½ half kg gold ornaments to the bride and one gold bracelet, one gold chain, one ring and suit clothes to the bride groom/ accused No.1 and also Rs.1,00,000/- cash as dowry. However, the P.W.1 told that he could not give site and motor cycle and thereby agreed to give 250 grams of gold ornaments to the bride/ the deceased and the gold chain, gold bracelet and gold ring and also suit cloths and Rs.50,000/- to the bride groom/ accused No.1 as dowry. It was also told in the marriage talk that reception should be on 03.03.2010 and the marriage should be performed on 04.03.2010 at Sri. Krishna Convention Hall. Thereafter about 15 days earlier to the date of marriage the accused No.2 and 3 and one Krishnappa came and P.W.1 gave Rs.50,000/- to them. On 03.03.2010 i.e., on the dateof reception, the P.W.1 gave the above said gold ornaments to the accused No.1 and also to the bride/ deceased as agreed by him. He also gave one chain and one set of ear stud with hangings to the deceased. Therefore, in the chief-examination itself the evidence of P.W.1 is that the accused persons demanded and thereby took dowry in the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1.

14. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 in chief-examination that after the marriage the deceased was residing with the accused persons at PWD Quarters in Magadi Road. After the marriage only for the period of 2 months the accused persons looked after the deceased well and thereafter the accused persons started to demand to bring further dowry and subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty. The relevant portion in the evidence in chief-examination of P.W.1 regarding the alleged ill-treatment and harassment by the accused persons to the deceased reads thus:

“ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ 2 wAUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ ZÉ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ 1 jAzÀ 4 £Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¤£Àß vÀAzÉ ¸ÉÊlÄ, ªÉÆÃmÁgÀÄ ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï, ªÀÄAZÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ©ÃgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è CAw vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀ®Ä ±ÀÄgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄÆzÉë CAvÀ C£ÀÄßwÛzÀÝgÀÄ, GªÀiÁªÀĺÉñÀ, CªÀ£À vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀqÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVzÀÝgÉ ®PÀëÁAvÀgÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä, §AUÀ¯,É ºÀt, PÁgÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ZÉ£ÁßV ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ »ÃUÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄvÁÛ CªÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸É PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ.”

The P.W.1 has also deposed that the said ill-treatment by the accused persons was told to him by the deceased through phone. However, on the hope that the accused persons would become alright in the days to come, the P.W.1 used to advise the deceased to make adjustment with the accused persons. Even then the accused persons used to subject the deceased to ill-treatment. Subsequently, the P.W.1 gave cot and almirah to the deceased. But thereafter also the accused persons subjected the deceased to cruelty stating that he did not give house site and motor cycle to the accused No.1 as dowry.

15. It is deposed by the P.W.1 in his evidence that thereafter the deceased became pregnant and when she was 9 months pregnant he brought the deceased to his house and thereafter the deceased delivered male child at D.G. Hospital. But the accused persons did not turn up to see the child. When the child was aged 5 months the naming ceremony was performed by him. When the accused persons were invited for the said ceremony they told that they would not come. They also told that the naming ceremony should be held at choultry. But the P.W.1 performed the naming ceremony of the child in his house and the accused did not attend the said ceremony.

16. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that on 08.06.2011 he took his daughter to the house of accused persons. At that time the accused persons abused him and insulted. Even then he left the deceased in the house of accused persons. Thereafter also the accused persons used to ill-treatment the deceased. The P.W.1 has also deposed in his chief-examination that on 12.06.2011 at about 9.45 a.m. the accused No.1 told him over phone that the deceased had died. Hence, the P.W.1 along with his wife and relatives went to the house of accused persons and found the dead body of the deceased on the cot in the house in first floor. When they enquired the accused No.2 regarding the same, the accused No.2 told that the deceased died of committing suicide by hanging.

17. The evidence of P.W.1 is that the deceased died of committing suicide due to ill-treatment by the accused persons and hence, thereafter he gave complaint to the police as per Ex.P.1. After giving complaint the police came to the spot and drew mahazar. At that time one saree, one knife and nylon thread were seized by the police. The said mahazar is marked at Ex.P.4. The marriage invitation and photos of marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1 are produced as per Exs.P.5 to P.13 respectively. The receipt for having booked hall for the marriage, 2 receipts for having purchased gold ornaments from Sudarshan Jewelers and Praveen Jewelers are also produced by the prosecution and got marked in the evidence in chief- examination of P.W.1 as per Exs.P.14 to P.18 respectively. The saree, knife and nylon rope seized from the spot as per mahazar at Ex.P.4 are got marked in the evidence of P.W.1 as per M.O.1 to M.O.3 respectively.

18. The P.W.1 has also deposed that on the following day of drawing of mahazar at Ex.P.4 the police called him to the house of accused persons and seized the cot, almirah, suit clothes and gold ornaments belonging to the deceased from the house of accused persons as per mahazar at Ex.P.19. He put his signature to the said mahazar as per Ex.P.19(a).

19. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that the police got taken photos at the time of drawing mahazar and the said photos are marked at Exs.P.20 to P.26 and C.D. regarding the same is marked at Ex.P.27. Therefore, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the evidence of P.W.1 is regarding demand and taking of dowry at the time of marriage of deceased with the accused No.1, demanding of dowry after the marriage when the deceased was residing with the accused persons and also that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the accused persons demanding to bring further dowry and hence, without bearing with the ill-treatment and harassment by the accused persons, the deceased died of committing suicide.

20. The fact that the deceased died in the house of accused persons committing suicide within the period of 7 years from the date of her marriage with the accused No.1 is not in dispute. However, as discussed herein above, unless the prosecution proves that the deceased died of committing suicide without bearing with the ill- treatment and harassment allegedly given by the accused persons, no case can be made out against the accused persons for the offences charged only on the basis of evidence of P.W.1 in his chief- examination. In this background the evidence of remaining witnesses should be considered in proper prospective.

21. The C.W.9 Chandramma is mother of the deceased. She has been examined as P.W.3. The P.W.4 Anantha Murthy is elder brother of P.W.1 Hari Krishna and hence, it is not in dispute that the C.W.4 is elder paternal uncle of the deceased. The P.W.5 Lakshmi is wife of P.W.4. The P.W.6 Krishna Prasad is younger brother of the complainant P.W.1 and hence, the P.W.6 is younger paternal uncle of the deceased. Hence, it is not in dispute that the P.W.3 is mother and P.W.4 to P.W.6 are close relatives of the deceased. It is true that the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.6 in their chief-examination is in accordance with the evidence deposed by P.W.1 in his chief-examination regarding the alleged ill-treatment and harassment by the accused persons to the deceased. However, unless the evidence in cross-examination of those witnesses is taken into consideration, only the evidence in chief- examination of the said witnesses does not arise for consideration. Further, as submitted by the counsel for accused persons, if the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 to P.W.6 is taken into consideration, it is clear that their evidence regarding the alleged ill-treatment by the accused persons to the deceased is based on the alleged say of the deceased of P.W.1 and P.W.3 over phone.

22. It is very strange to note that the investigating officer has not chosen to obtain the call details of the concerned phone to prove that the deceased was talking with the P.W.1 to P.W.3 regarding the alleged ill-treatment to her by the accused persons. Moreover, as pointed out by the counsel for accused persons, the P.W.1 in his evidence in cross-examination has deposed that:

“2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ PÁ®PÉÌ ¦qÀ§Æèår AiÀÄ°è ZÁ®PÀ CAvÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀ£Ý ÀÄ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj.” Further, regarding the accused No.4, the evidence of P.W.1 in his evidence in cross-examination reads thus:

“4£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ CAvÀgïeÁw ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀ ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ°è 4£Éà DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ£À ºÉAqÀw ¥ÉæêÀÄ Cad£Á J¸ÉÖAUÀPÀë£ï£À°gè ÀĪÀ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ”

The above referred evidence of P.W.1 clearly goes to show that since the date of marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1 the accused No.4 was not residing with the accused persons in the same house.

23. Moreover, regarding giving of deceased in marriage with the accused No.1, the evidence of P.W.1 in the evidence in cross- examination reads thus:

“£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß C½AiÀĤVAvÀ gÀÆ¥ÀªÀwAiÀiÁVzÀݼÀÄ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj . ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UAr£À eÁvÀPz À À ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÉÆÃr ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjAiÀÄÄvÁÛg.É £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C½AiÀÄ£À eÁvÀPÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÁUÀ CzÀÄ ¸Àj ºÉÆÃVvÀÄÛ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ZÉ£ÁßVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ©.PÁ. ¥ÀzÀ«zÀgÀ½gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä M¦àPÉÆArzÀ£Ý ÀÄ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj.”

Further regarding giving of silk sarees and ornaments in the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1, the admission of P.W.1 in his evidence in cross-examination is that:

“£ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀzÀÝwAiÀÄAvÉ UÀAr£ÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉtôÚUÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ gÉÃ¥Éëä ¹ÃgÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¥ÀzÀÝw EgÀÄvÀÛz,É zsÁgÉ JgÉzÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÁUÀ CvÉÛ ªÀiÁªÀ¤UÉ §nÖ PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¥ÀzÀÝw EgÀÄvÀÛz.É ºÉtô£Ú ÀªÀgÀÄ UÀAr£À vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ §mÉÖ PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛgÉ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. UÀArUÉ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀðå EzÀÝ vÁ½, vÁ½AiÀÄ ZÉÊ£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛgÉ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. ºÉtôÚ£À PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ a£ÀßzÀ ªÀqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛgÉ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£Éà RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ªÀqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁQzÉ£Ý .À £À£Àß C½AiÀĤUÀÆ ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ GAUÀÄgÀ, ZÉÊ£ÀÄ, ¨Áæ¸ï¯Émï PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É.”

As submitted by the counsel for accused persons, this evidence of P.W.1 in cross-examination falsifies his evidence that the accused persons demanded to give clothes and gold ornaments and hence, he gave the gold ornaments and clothes to the accused No.1 as dowry in the marriage of deceased with the accused No.1. On the other hand, the above referred evidence of P.W.1 shows that the gold ornaments and clothes allegedly given by the P.W.1 to the accused No.1 in the marriage of accused No.1 is as per the customs prevailing in their community. As submitted by the counsel for accused persons, if anything is given under as per the customs, it does not amount to dowry under the Act.

24. Moreover, regarding the alleged ill-treatment by the accused persons to the deceased, the evidence of P.W.1 in his cross- examination reads thus:

“£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ 9 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ 10 ¢£ÀPÉÌ MAzÀÄ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄUÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ C£ÀÆå£ÀåvɬÄAzÀ MAzÀÄ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄUÀÄ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ 9 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀÄA©zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÉjUÉUÁV £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉݪÀÅ. ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ºÉjUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÉà ªÀiÁr¸À¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 5 wAUÀ¼À UÀ¨ÀsðªÀwAiÀiÁzÁUÀ vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgɹPÉƼÀÄî ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄ«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj.”

If the above referred evidence of P.W.1 is considered, it is clear that the fact that the deceased was brought to the house of P.W.1 for her maternity of her first child is not due to any ill-treatment and harassment by the accused persons. There is absolutely no documentary evidence forthcoming from the prosecution to prove that till the date of death of the deceased, there was no complaint by the deceased to the police against the accused persons alleging that the accused persons subjected her to any kind of ill-treatment and harassment.

25. Further, it is admitted by the P.W.1 that the deceased being the elder daughter-in-law in the house of accused persons she had more responsibility of looking after the family. It is very pertinent to note that the P.W.1 in his evidence in cross-examination has deposed that:

“£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀvÀÆÛ UÀAqÀ££À ÀÄß ©lÄÖ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢gÀ°®è.” This evidence of P.W.1 clearly goes to show that till the death of the deceased except for her maternity of her first child the deceased had not gone to the house of her parents i.e., the house of P.W.1. This conduct of the deceased would show that there was no any ill- treatment and harassment to her by the accused persons. If at all the deceased was subjected to any kind of ill-treatment by the accused persons, she would have gone to her parents house at the relevant time.

26. The P.W.3 Chandramma is mother of the deceased. She has deposed in her evidence in chief-examination the facts in accordance with the evidence of P.W.1. As per the evidence of P.W.3, the accused demanded and took dowry in the form of cash amount and also gold ornaments and after the marriage when the deceased was residing with the accused persons, the accused used to subject the deceased to physical and mental cruelty demanding to give motor cycle, cot and almirah to the accused No.1 as further dowry. However, as pointed out by the counsel for accused persons, in the evidence in cross- examination the P.W.3 has deposed that that there is custom of giving clothes and ornaments from both the sides of bride and bridegroom at the time of marriage.

27. Further, the P.W.3 has admitted in her evidence in cross- examination that in the marriage of her son the clothes and ornaments were given by both the sides as customs. The P.W.3 has further admitted that as per the customs, the gold ornaments and clothes were given to each other in the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1. The relevant portion in the evidence in cross- examination of P.W.3 reads thus:

“£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£À ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄä ©ÃUÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ªÀqÀªÉ ªÀ¸ÀÛçUÀ¼£À ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀÆa¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d.” The relevant portion in the evidence in cross-examination of P.W.3 also reads thus:

“£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ £ÁUÀ¨ÀsƵÀuï FvÀ£À ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ PÁ®PÉÌ ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÝ a£ÀßzÀ ¨Áæ¸ÉÃè mï, PÀwÛ£À ZÉÊ£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀÆmï EªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀrgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀÆa¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d…….£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÉ CZÀð£Á ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀAvÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ°è £ÁªÀÅ £ÉgÀªÃÉ j¹gÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉAzÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀÆa¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d.”

If this admission of P.W.3 in her evidence in cross-examination is considered, it is clear that the ornaments and clothes allegedly given to the accused No.1 in his marriage with the deceased were only as per the customs prevailing in their community. It is well settled principle of law that the said customary gifts do not amount to dowry.

28. Further, the P.W.3 in her evidence in cross-examination has deposed that as per the customs in her family, the almirah, cot and household articles were also given in the marriage of her daughter, the deceased. Moreover, as per the evidence of P.W.3 in her cross- examination, earlier to the marriage of accused No.1, the accused No.4 married the girl belonging to other caste and the accused No.4 had one child. Further, the P.W.3 has pleaded ignorance that she did not know whether accused No.4 was residing along with the accused No.1 to 3 and the deceased at the relevant period.

29. It is also the evidence of P.W.3 that after knowing that the accused No.1 is having good employment and getting handsome salary, they agreed to give the deceased in marriage to the accused No.1. Therefore, the contention of prosecution that the accused No.1 was in need of money and hence, the accused No.1 demanded amount as dowry at the time of marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased and thereafter also demanded further dowry when the deceased was residing with the accused No.1 appears to be improbable.

30. Further, it is very pertinent to note that the P.W.3 has pleaded ignorance that the accused No.1 had his own motor cycle at the time of his marriage with the deceased. This evidence of P.W.3 shows that she did not know whether the accused No.1 had motor cycle at the time of his marriage and whether the accused No.1 was in need of motor cycle after his marriage. Therefore, the contention of prosecution that the accused No.1 demanded motor cycle from the parents of deceased after his marriage with the deceased appears to be not believable.

31. The P.W.4 Ananthamurthy is elder brother of P.W.1. The P.W.5 Lakshmi is wife of P.W.4 and hence, the P.W.5 is sister-in-law of P.W.1. The P.W.6 Krishna Prasad is younger brother of P.W.1. The P.W.7 Guru Prasad is son of P.W.4 and P.W.5 and hence, the P.W.7 is nephew of P.W.1. Therefore, the P.W.4 to P.W.7 are close relatives of the deceased. It is true that the P.W.4 to P.W.7 have deposed that the accused persons demanded and took dowry in the form of cash amount and clothes in the marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased. It is also their evidence that after the marriage the accused persons subjected the deceased to physical and mental cruelty demanding to bring further dowry and hence, the P.W.1 gave Almirah and cot to the accused No.1 as further dowry.

32. If the evidence of P.W.4 to P.W.7 is considered in its totality, it is clear that their evidence regarding the alleged ill- treatment by the accused persons to the deceased and demand and taking of dowry is only hearsay one i.e., such allegations were told to them by the P.W.1 and P.W.3. There is absolutely no evidence forthcoming from P.W.4 to P.W.7 to prove that they visited the house of accused persons at any point of time and witnessed that the accused persons were subjecting the deceased to any kind of ill- treatment and harassment.

33. Moreover, as pointed out by the counsel for accused persons there are discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of P.W.4 to P.W.7 with the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the alleged ill- treatment and harassment by the accused persons to the deceased. As pointed out by the counsel for accused persons, the facts stated by those witnesses in their chief-examination are not stated by them before the police in the statements allegedly recorded during the investigation of the case. There are improvements made in the evidence in chief of P.W.4 to P.W.7 regarding the case alleged against the accused persons. Therefore, without the support of any independent corroborative evidence, the evidence of P.W.4 to P.W.7 does not stand for consideration.

34. The submission of the counsel for accused persons is that if the evidence of some of the material witnesses is taken into consideration, it can be gathered that the police visited the palce of incident earlier to registering the case on the complaint of P.W.1 as per Ex.P.1. The counsel for accused persons has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant portion in the evidence in cross- examination of P.W.4. In the said evidence the P.W.4 has denied that the police had already come to the house of the accused persons when he went to the said house after knowing about the death of the deceased.

35. As pointed out by the counsel for accused persons, it is true that the P.W.7 Guru Prasad is nephew of P.W.1 and the P.W.7 has deposed in his evidence in cross-examination that:

“CZÀð£Á ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀlÖ «µÀAiÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¨É½UÉÎ 9.30 PÉÌ w½¬ÄvÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAV ¸ÀvÀÛ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ¨É½UÉÎ 10.15 DVvÀÄÛ. £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀµÀÖgÀ°è ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ.”

As pointed out by the counsel for accused persons as per Ex.P.1 the case was registered on 12.06.2011 at about 2.30 p.m. Hence, based on the evidence of P.W.7, the submission of counsel for the accused persons is that the police visited the spot earlier to registration of the case and hence, the complaint at Ex.P.1 cannot be considered as first information. On the other hand, at the most it may be considered as the statement taken during the investigation as per Sec.162 of Cr.P.C.

36. However, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the evidence of witnesses should be considered in its entirety. A stray sentence in the evidence of any of the witnesses cannot be picked up and thereby considered for discarding the evidence of the concerned witnesses in its entirety. Moreover, if the evidence of P.W.7 in his chief-examination is considered, he went to the spot on 12.06.2011 to see the dead body of the deceased and at that time the police drew mahazar at Ex.P.4 and seized the ornaments found on the dead bodyof the deceased and also the rope, saree and knife found lying near the dead body. Those properties were seized by the police as per the mahazar at Ex.P.4. The rope, saree and knife are produced and marked in the evidence in chief-examination of P.W.7 as per M.O.1 to M.O.3.

37. The C.W.10 Nagabhushan is brother of the deceased. He has been examined as P.W.18. It is true that in the evidence in chief- examination the P.W.18 has deposed regarding the alleged dowry demanded and taken by the accused persons in the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1. P.W.18 has also deposed that for the purpose of maternity the deceased came to the house of P.W.1 and thereafter even though the accused were invited for naming ceremony of the child, the accused persons did not turn up. Thereafter on 08.05.2011 the deceased along with her child was taken to the house of accused persons. At that time, the accused persons abused his mother. It is also the evidence of P.W.18 that the said fact was told to him by his mother.

38. As pointed out by the counsel for accused persons, it is very pertinent to note that in the evidence in chief-examination itself the P.W.18 has deposed as hereunder:

“CZÀð£Á ¢B12.06.2011 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 9.45 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ 1£Éà DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ zÀÆgÀªÁtô PÀgÉ ªÀiÁr CZÀð£Á £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ¼ÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀ£ÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÉ®ègÀÆ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 11 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀĪÀAiÀÄPÉÌ DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzɪÀÅ. CZÀð£Á AiÀiÁªÀ PÁgÀtPÉÌ £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®.è “

This evidence of P.W.18 is quite contrary to the case of prosecution alleged against the accused persons and hence, he is treated hostile by the prosecution and subjected to cross-examination. In the evidence in cross-examination by the prosecution, the P.W.18 has denied that he gave any statement to the police as per Ex.P.34. Further, he has also denied that he gave any statement to the police as per Ex.P.34(a) that the accused persons are the cause for the death of the deceased by committing suicide.

39. It is very pertinent to note that the P.W.18 is brother of the deceased. There is absolutely no material forthcoming from the prosecution to show why the P.W.18 being the brother of the deceased has turned hostile, if at all the case alleged against the accused persons is true. Moreover, in the evidence in cross- examination by the counsel for accused persons, the P.W.18 has admitted the suggestions regarding the defence put forth by the accused persons as true. Further, if the evidence of P.W.18 is taken into consideration in its entirety, it is clear that the gold ornaments and clothes allegedly given by the P.W.1 to the accused No.1 in his marriage with the deceased is only as per the customs prevailing on their community. Hence, there is absolutely no material in theevidence of P.W.18 to prove any of the offences charged against the accused persons in the case.

40. The C.W.14 J. Narayanappa is husband of the sister of accused No.2 and hence, he is relative of the accused persons. He has been examined as P.W.16. The P.W.16 is alleged to be the mediator in the marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased. But in the evidence in chief-examination itself the P.W.16 has denied that he participated in the marriage talk. He has also denied that he does not know what was transpired between the accused persons and the P.W.1 in the said marriage talk. Further, the P.W.16 has denied that he gave any statement to the police in the case. Hence, the P.W.16 has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In the evidence in cross- examination by the prosecution also, the P.W.16 has denied that he gave any statement to the police as per Ex.P.33.

41. The C.W.13 Krishnappa is the distant relative of P.W.16. He has been examined as P.W.8. The P.W.8 is also alleged to have participated in the marriage talk. He has deposed that in the marriage talk the accused persons demanded house site and bike as dowry, but the P.W.1 told that he could not give site and motor cycle and he agreed to give gold chain, bracelet, ring and suit clothes and also amount of Rs.50,000/- to the accused No.1 as dowry. However, the evidence of P.W.8 regarding the alleged subsequent development is only hearsay one. Further, the evidence of P.W.8 regarding the cause for death of the deceased is hearsay, as same was told to him by the P.W.1. Hence, the P.W.8 is treated partly hostile to the case of prosecution regarding demand and taking of dowry by the accused persons.

42. In the evidence in cross-examination by the prosecution, the P.W.8 has admitted that he gave statement before the police that the P.W.1 gave gold ornaments as dowry in the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1. However, the P.W.1 is subjected to cross-examination by the counsel for accused persons. If the evidence of P.W.8 in cross-examination by the accused persons is considered, the defence put forth by the accused persons appears to be probable and it falsifies the case of the prosecution against the accused persons. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.8 is not helpful to the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the case charged against the accused persons.

43. The P.W.11 Venugopal is owner of the house, wherein the deceased was residing along with the accused No.1 to 3 at the relevant time. The P.W.11 has deposed that the accused No.1 took his house on lease. Thereafter, for one month the accused No.1 to 3 were residing along with the deceased in the house. But the P.W.11 has further deposed that he does not know whether there was any quarrelbetween the accused persons and the deceased. On the other hand, in the evidence in chief-examination itself the P.W.11 has deposed that:

“ªÀÄÈvÉ CZÀð£Á DgÉÆævÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸À«zÀÝ PÁ®PÉÌ CªÀgÀ £ÀqÀÄªÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÃÉ WÀl£É ¸ÀA¨Às«¹gÀĪÀÅzÀ®.è ”

Therefore, the evidence of P.W.11 is quite contrary to the case of prosecution and hence, he is treated hostile by the prosecution and subjected to cross-examination. In the evidence in cross-examination also, the P.W.11 has denied the prosecution case. He has also denied that he gave any statement to the police as per Ex.P.30 in the case. The copy of lease agreement is got marked at Ex.P.31 in the evidence of P.W.11.

44. The P.W.12 Manjula is wife of P.W.11. The P.W.12 has also turned hostile to the case of prosecution, as she has denied the case alleged against the accused persons. Further, the P.W.12 has denied that she gave any statement to the police as per Ex.P.32. The P.W.13 Nagaraj is the Photographer, who is alleged to have taken photos at Ex.P.13 to P.16. There is absolutely no dispute that the accused No.1 married the deceased. The place and date of her marriage is also not in dispute. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.13 is in no way helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the case charged against the accused persons.

45. The P.W.14 Prashanth is alleged to be jeweler running shop in the name of ‘Prashanth Jewelers’. As per the prosecution case, Ex.P.18 was issued by P.W.14 regarding purchase of jewelers. However, in the evidence in cross-examination the P.W.14 has admitted that the receipt at Ex.P.18 was signed by one Kumar. There is absolutely no material forthcoming from the prosecution to prove that the said Kumar, who signed Ex.P.8 is in no way concerned with the P.W.1. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.14 and the receipt at Ex.P.18 were in no way helpful to the prosecution to prove that the jewels mentioned in Ex.P.18 was purchased by P.W.1 for giving the same to the accused No.1 as dowry in the marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased.

46. The P.W.17 Anjaneyalu is alleged to be the Secretary of Krishna Convention Hall, wherein the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1 was held. The evidence of P.W.17 is about the receipts at Exs.P.14 to P.16 regarding booking of the said hall for the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1. The documents at Exs.P.14 to P.16 are identified by P.W.17. However, in the evidence in cross-examination the P.W.17 has admitted that he did not sign the said documents at Exs.P.14 and P.15 as in charge of Krishna Convention Hall. Moreover, the fact that the marriage of accused No.1 was performed with the deceased in the said marriage hall is not in dispute.

47. Even though the evidence of P.W.17 and the documents at Exs.P.14 to P.16 are taken into consideration to come to the conclusion that the expenses regarding the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1 was borne by the P.W.1, it is in no way make out any case against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 3 and 4 of the Act. It is not in dispute that as per the customs, the marriage expenses of a girl would be borne by her parents. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.17 and the documents at Exs.P.14 to P.16 are in no way helpful to the case of prosecution to prove any of the offences charged against the accused persons in the case.

48. The P.W.2 K.R. Chandrashekar and P.W.10 Abhilash are alleged to be attesters to the inquest panchanama at Ex.P.3. The P.W.15 Y.B. Krishna is the then Special Tahsildar of Bengaluru North Taluk, who allegedly conducted the inquest panchanama at Ex.P.3. The fact that the deceased died of committing suicide by hanging is not in dispute. The notice issued to P.W.3 and P.W.10 are marked at Ex.P.2 and their signatures in Ex.P.2 is marked at Ex.P.2(a) and P.2(c) respectively. The P.W.15 has deposed that he issued notice to the concerned attesters as per Ex.P.2 and conducted inquest panchanama at Ex.P.3 at mortuary of Victoria hospital. However, in the evidence in cross-examination, the P.W.15 has deposed that the P.W.1 did not give any statement before him regarding alleged demand and taking of dowry by the accused persons. The P.W.15 has also deposed that the P.W.1 has not given any statement before him that he gave Rs.50,000/- to the accused persons 15 days earlier to the marriage and gold ornaments to the accused No.1 on 03.03.2010.

49. Moreover, the P.W.10 Abilash has deposed in his evidence in chief-examination that he found blood stains in the mouth and ear of the deceased. But, in the evidence in cross-examination by the counsel for accused persons the P.W.10 has admitted that the police took his signature to Ex.P.3 inquest panchanama in the police station. Therefore, there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.10. Further, even though the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.10 and P.W.15 is taken into consideration regarding proof of inquest panchanama at Ex.P.3, their evidence and inquest panchanama at Ex.P.3 are in no way helpful to the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons have committed the offence charged against them.

50. The P.W.19 Ammajamma is the Women Police Constable of complainant police station. Her evidence is regarding arrest of the accused No.1 to 4 on 12.06.2014 and produced them before the I.O. She has further deposed that she gave statement before the I.O. regarding the same. The P.W.20 Sandeep is the then PSI. As per his evidence, on 12.06.2011 the then Police Inspector the C.W.31 A.B. Rajendra Kumar has directed him to arrest the accused persons and accordingly, he along with P.W.19 and other officials arrested the accused persons from Basaveshwara Nagar, 1st ‘A’ Cross and produced all the accused No.1 to 4 before C.W.31 on the same day at 7.30 p.m. and gave report as per Ex.P.35. Hence, the evidence of P.W.19 and P.W.20 is only regarding assistance to the I.O. in the investigation regarding arrest of the accused persons.

51. The C.W.31 A.B. Rajendra Kumar, the then Police Inspector has been examined as P.W.21. As per the evidence of P.W.21, on 12.06.2011 at about 2.30 p.m. the P.W.1 came to the police station and gave complaint at Ex.P.1. Accordingly, he registered the case as per FIR at Ex.P.36. On the same day he visited the spot and drew rough sketch of the spot as per Ex.P.37. Thereafter, as the deceased died within 7 years from the date of her marriage, P.W.31 requested P.W.15, the then Tahsildar, to conduct the inquest panchanama of dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, he drew spot panchanama at Ex.P.4 and seized Saree, Nylon Rope and Steel Knife found at the spot as per the said mahazar. The said properties are already marked at M.O.1 to M.O.3. The P.W.21 got conducted inquest panchanama through P.W.15. On the same day the P.W.20, P.W.10 and other staffproduced the accused persons before him as per the report at Ex.P.35 and accordingly, he arrested the accused persons. At that time, he enquired the accused No.1 and accused No.1 gave voluntary statement before him as per Ex.P.38. As per the said statement, he visited the house of accused persons and seized gold ornaments, cot, almirah from the house of accused No.1 as per mahazar at Ex.P.19. He took photos at the spot as per Exs.P.22 and P.24 to P.26 respectively. The further investigation was done by C.W.32. However, unless the mahazar at Ex.P.19 is proved with the support of any independent witnesses, the voluntary statement at Ex.P.38 and the seizure mahazar at Ex.P.19 do not merit consideration only on the basis of evidence of P.W.21.

52. The P.W.9 Subramani is alleged to be the attester to the seizure mahazar at Ex.P.19. He has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. He has denied that the police seized any such properties from the house of accused persons as per mahazar at Ex.P.19. But, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, it is true that the accused persons have not denied that the police seized gold ornaments, cot and almirah from the house of accused No.1 and they did not claim the said properties. But the seizure of those properties itself does not make out any case against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act, unless the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that those properties are taken by the accused persons from P.W.1 as dowry in the marriage of accused No.1 with the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.21 and the documents at Exs.P.19 and P.38 do not merit consideration to prove the offence charged against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.

53. Moreover, as discussed herein above, the evidence of P.W.1 is not in accordance with the contents of complaint at Ex.P.1. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.21 regarding complaint at Ex.P.1 and the FIR at Ex.P.36 also does not merit consideration to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons have committed offence charged against them in the case.

54. The C.W.32 M.I. Jameel is the then ACP, who is I.O. in the case, who took up further investigation of the case from P.W.21. On 13.06.2011 he has been examined as P.W.22. It is true that the P.W.22 has deposed that he recorded the statements of the concerned witnesses and seized the documents at Exs.P.14 to P.16 and P.31. He also seized the marriage invitation and photos at Exs.P.5 to P.13. The P.W.22 has also deposed that he recorded the statement of P.W.14 Prashanth and other material witnesses and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

55. However, as discussed herein above, the P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.16 and P.W.18 have denied that they gave any statements before the police as per Exs.P.30 and P.32 to P.34 respectively. Moreover, as argued by the counsel for accused persons, in the evidence in cross- examination of P.W.22 contradictions, omissions and improvements forthcoming in the evidence of P.W.1 and other material witnesses are elicited.

56. Moreover, as discussed herein above, the P.W.18, who is brother of the deceased has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. His relevant statement allegedly given before the I.O. is got marked at Ex.D.1 by the prosecution in the evidence in cross-examination of P.W.18. But the P.W.22 has denied the said fact in his cross- examination. Hence, as stated herein above, there is absolutely no material forthcoming from the prosecution to show why P.W.18 has not supported the case of prosecution alleged against the accused persons, even though the P.W.18 is brother of the deceased. Hence, the cumulative effect of the evidence forthcoming on record clearly goes to show that there are contradictions, omissions and discrepancies in the evidence of complainant and other material witnesses.

57. Further, the evidence of P.W.10 and P.W.12 are taken into consideration, it is clear that they turned hostile and hence, there is absolutely no independent evidence forthcoming from the prosecution to prove that the deceased was subjected to any kind of ill-treatment and harassment by the accused persons demanding to bring dowry and thereafter such ill-treatment and harassment by the accused persons had driven the deceased to commit suicide.

58. The counsel for accused persons has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay reported in 2005 Crl.L.J. 1221 (Ganesh Y Bhutekar Vs State of Maharashtra), in which in the case for the offence punishable under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC, it is held that:

“Allegations of ill-treatment and harassment on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Wife alleged to have committed suicide on account of alleged ill treatment. But evidence of only close relatives of deceased taken. No independent evidence of villager/ neighbours record. Evidence of demand found totally inconsistent and evidence of cruelty vague. Presumption under Sec.113-A, Evidence Act, not available. Conviction under Sec.304-B, 498-A held improper.”

However, on the other hand, the learned Prosecutor has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2011 (4) Crl.L.J. 232 (SC) (Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh Vs State of Gujarat & Anr), in which it is held that:

“Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, omission or improvement on trivial matters without affecting the case of the prosecution should not be made the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety.”

The Learned Prosecutor has also drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of our Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2004 (5) Kar.L.J. 260 (DB) (Karbasappa and Others Vs State through Narona Police Station), in which referring to Sec.3 of the Evidence Act, It is held that:

“Some inconsistencies of a minor nature in the evidence of the witness can be regarded as natural giving more details while deposing before the Court are not to be treated as improvements of such a nature as would create any doubt regarding the trustworthiness of a witness.”

There is absolutely no dispute regarding the principle of law laid down in the above referred decisions relied on by the prosecution. But in the case on hand, the inconsistencies and improvements forthcoming in the evidence of prosecution witnesses are not on trivial matters. On the other hand, it affects the case alleged against the accused persons. Hence, merely on the basis of evidence of P.W.1 and other material witnesses, who are close relatives of the deceased, no case can be made out against the accused persons for the offence charged.

59. One of the main defences urged by the accused persons is that there is delay in submitting FIR to the concerned Magistrate regarding the case registered against the accused persons and therefore, doubt arises regarding the alleged incident itself. The counsel for accused persons has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant portions in the evidence of P.W.1 and other material witnesses. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the FIR at Ex.P.36. As per the said document, it is true that the case was registered on 12.06.2011 at about 8.00 a.m. and thereafter, the said FIR was received by the concerned Magistrate on 13.06.2011 at 11.00 a.m. Hence, as per the said document, there is delay of one day and 3 hours in submitting the FIR to the concerned Magistrate after registration of the case. On the basis of the said delay, the argument of counsel for accused persons is that the case alleged against the accused persons is not believable.

60. In support of his contention the counsel for accused persons has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of our Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2013 Kar 992 (H.C. Karigowda @ Srinivas and Others Vs State of Karnataka), in which it is held that:

“If the investigating officer deliberately does not record FIR after receipt of information of cognizable offence registering the complaint as per FIR after reaching the spot and after due deliberation, consultation and discussions such complaint cannot be treated as FIR, it would only statement made during the investigation and hit by Sec.162 of Cr.P.C.”

The counsel for accused persons has drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of complainant P.W.1 and other material witnesses and on the basis of such evidence, it is the contention of counsel for accused persons that the police visited the spot earlier to registering the FIR as per complaint at Ex.P.1 and therefore, complaint at Ex.P.1 cannot be considered under Sec.151 of Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the said complaint would be statement under Sec.162 of Cr.P.C. and the said complaint would hit by Sec.162 of Cr.P.C.

61. In support of this contention he has drawn the attention of this Court the above referred decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in ILR 2013 Kar 992 (H.C. Karigowda @ Srinivas and Others Vs State of Karnataka), and also another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1993 SC 2644 (State of A.P. Vs Punati Ramulu and others).

62. However, as against this argument of the counsel for accused persons, the learned Prosecutor has drawn the attention of this Court to the recent decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan reported in 2018 Crl.L.J. 3180 (Mahendra Saini Vs State of Rajasthan), in which referring to Sec.157 of Cr.P.C. it is held that:

“Inquest proceedings conducted on the same night when the victim was shot, before post mortem of the deceased and FIR was lodged shortly after incident and informant, father of victim naming all the accused persons immediately. There was no possibility of false implication of accused by the family of victim and hence, FIR though lodged promptly after the incident to be sent to Magistrate belatedly after 2 days, only due to negligence of Investigating Officer. Such delay in dispatching of FIR to Magistrate is not fatal to the case of prosecution.”

As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, in view of the principle of law laid down in the above referred decision, it is clear that even though there is delay in dispatching FIR to the concerned Magistrate in the case on hand, such delay would be result of the negligence on the part of I.O. and such negligence is not fatal to the case of prosecution to disbelieve the incident as alleged by the prosecution against the accused persons. But, in the case on hand, as submitted by the counsel for accused persons, there is not only delay in dispatching the FIR to the concerned Magistrate but there is also evidence of material witnesses on record, which would show that the concerned police visited the spot of incident earlier to lodging the complaint by the P.W.1 to the police as per Ex.P.1. Therefore, in this background the relevant evidence forthcoming on record shall be appreciated.

63. The counsel for accused has argued that there is material improvements made by the concerned witnesses in their evidence and there are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of material witnesses regarding cause of death of the deceased and the alleged demand and taking of dowry by the accused persons from the parents of the deceased in the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1.

64. The counsel for accused persons has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1996 SC 2478 (Dhanna Etc Vs State of M.P.), in which in the case for the offence of murder it is held that:

“The prosecution witness did not refer to any role played by the accused when he gave statement to the police investigation and hence, the accused cannot be convicted for murder on the basis of improvement made by the witness at trial.”

The counsel for accused persons has relied another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2011) 2 SCC 715 (Subhash Vs State of Haryana), in which in the case for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 306 of IPC it is held that:

“There are contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishment. There are material contradictions in the evidence of the concerned witnesses and they claimed that oral dying declaration made to them by the deceased. The said significant fact had been omitted in their statements under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. there was no explanation for such omissions and hence it is held that if a significant omissions are made in the statement of witness recorded under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. same may amount to contradiction and such statements of the witnesses inspire no confidence, conviction of appellant is set aside.”

The counsel for accused persons has referred to one more decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in LAWS (SC) 2009 4 224 (Raman Kumar Vs State of Punjab), in which for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC, it is held that:

“There was improvement in the statements of the witnesses and hence, the case is devoid of reasons and various factors obtaining in the case showing that the prosecution failed to establish accusations against the appellant. Hence, conviction of the accused is set aside.”

Moreover, the argument of the counsel for accused persons is that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt in proving the case for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and304-B of IPC, the prosecution must prove that the death is due to cruelty or harassment soon before the death. In support of this contention the counsel for accused persons has relied on the following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in:

1. 2010 AIR SCW 3673 (Durga Prasad Vs State of M.P.),

2. AIR 2008 SC 2377 (Narayana Murthy Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.)

3. AIR 2001 SC 3020 (Sunil Bajaj Vs State of M.P.), and

4. (2006) 12 SCC 306 (Vikramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab).

As pointed out by the counsel for accused persons, in the decision at Sl.No.1 referred herein above, the offence is punishable under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC. In the said decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referring to Sec.113-B of Evidence Act has held that:

“Except bald statement made by the mother and brother of the deceased about cruelty and harassment to deceased, there is no other evidence adduced by the prosecution and hence, the prosecution has failed to satisfy requirements of Sec.304-B of IPC and Sec.113-B of Evidence Accused and hence, the accused is liable to be acquitted.”

Further, in the decision at Sl.No.2 which is the case for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, it is held that:

“The mother of victim has deposed that the victim had complained about quarrel over gifts given at threat changing ceremony the brother of deceased has deposed that the accused – husband used to quarrel with the deceased on small and petty matters and her husband and parents-in-law demanding certain articles. Hence, the evidence of brother and mother of victim are contradictory and there is nothing to show that the demand for dowry was soon before the death. The neighbours are not supporting the prosecution case and hence, the accused/ husband is liable to be acquitted.”

The decision at Sl.No.3 referred herein above is regarding the case for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and it is held in the said decision that:

“There is no evidence of any relative or neighbour of parties about cruelty to deceased by the accused in relation to demand of dowry. There are material contradictions and serious omissions in the prosecution witnesses, there is no evidence that mental cruelty to which the deceased was subjected to by the accused was in relation to dowry and therefore order of confirming the conviction and sentence is illegal.”

There is no dispute regarding the principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions at Sl.No.1 to 4 regarding the case for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC. But as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the facts of the case on hand are not similar to the facts of the cases of the said decisions.

65. Moreover, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the decision at Sl.No.4 relied on by the counsel for accused persons is regarding the offence punishable under Section 374 and 386 of IPC and in the said decision referring to Sec.106 of Evidence Act it is held that:

“Burden of proving fact except within the knowledge does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Only when the prosecution case has been proved the burden in record to such which was within the special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same subject to certain statutory exceptions the strong legi… arises with any of probabilities the accused was guilty of the commission of heinous offence but suspicions however grave cannot be substituted for proof. The prosecution having not upon able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the appellant/ accused is entitled to acquittal.”

Even though there is no dispute regarding the principle of law laid down in the said decision, it is not a applicable to the case on hand, as the present case is for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304 of IPC.

66. As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the incidence regarding offences alleged in the case on hand would happen within 4 walls and therefore, the Court cannot expect any independent witnesses other than the relatives of the victim to prove the offence alleged against the accused persons. Hence, the said decision does not help the prosecution in the case on hand.

67. The counsel for accused persons has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2016 SC 4958 (Harbeer Singh Vs Sheeshpal). In the said decision referring to Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. it is held that:

“There was delay of 15 to 16 days from the date of incident in recording the statements of the witnesses to alleged conspiracy between the accused person to kill the deceased. The fact that family had to sit for shock meetings for 12 to 13 days. The said delay in recording statements of the witnesses as regards incident of murder was not satisfactorily explained and hence it would cast doubt upon the prosecution case.”

There is no dispute regarding the principle of law laid down in the above referred decision that if there is delay in recording statements of the concerned witnesses by the Investigating Officers, such delay if it is not explained properly would create doubt about the prosecution cases.

68. However, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor the said decision is regarding the offence of murder. On the other hand, the case on hand is for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC. Further, the counsel for accused persons has failed to show that there is inordinate delay in recording the statements of witnesses in the case on hand. As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, if the prosecution papers on record are considered, it is clear that the statements of material witnesses recorded by the I.O. only after 2 days from the date of alleged incident. Hence, the above referred decision does not help the accused persons in this case.

69. The counsel for accused persons has also relied on one more decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1979 SC 135 (Ganesh Bhavan Patel Vs State of Maharashtra) it is held that:

“Delay of a few hours, simpliciter, in recording the statements of eye-witnesses may not, by itself, amount to a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. But it may assume such a character if there are concomitant circumstances to suggest that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eyewitnesses to be introduced. Thus under the facts and circumstances of the case delay in recording the statements of the material witnesses, casts a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the on the warr.”

From the discussions made herein above, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the case alleged against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt on the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record. Hence, even though the points regarding error allegedly committed by the I.O. in the investigation in view of the principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions is not considered there is no ground to believe the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.

70. It is true that the accused persons have adduced evidence by examining the accused No.1 as D.W.1. The accused persons have also produced documents at Exs.D.2 to D.31 in support of their contentions. On the basis of the evidence of accused No.1 as D.W.1 and the documents at Exs.D.2 to D.31, the argument of the counsel for accused persons is that the accused No.1 had sufficient income as on the date of his marriage with the deceased and hence, there was no question of demanding any amount or properties as dowry at the time of his marriage with the deceased.

71. It is true that the learned Prosecutor has pointed out some discrepancies in the evidence of D.W.1 and the documents produced by the accused persons at Exs.D.2 to D.31. However, it is well settled principle of law that in the criminal case the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Even if it is accepted that the accused persons have failed to prove their defence cannot be a ground to consider the evidence of prosecution to make out the case charged against the accused persons.

72. Moreover, it is very pertinent to note that the counsel for accused persons has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of our Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 1996 KAR 1107 (State of Karnataka Vs Dr. H.A. Ramaswamy), in which referring to the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC it is held that”

“Under Sec.304-B of IPC a new offence known as ‘dowry death’ has been constituted. To constitute this offence the following ingredients must be established : (1) The death of woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; (2) Death must have taken place within 7 years of her marriage; (3) Soon before her death she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relative of her husband; (4) Such cruelty or harassment must have been for or in connection with any demand for dowry as defined under Sec.2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act… Cruelty for purpose of Sec.304-B has the same meaning as could be gathered from the Explanation to Sec.498-A of IPC.”

As discussed herein above, there is absolutely no evidence forthcoming from the prosecution to prove that soon before death of the deceased she was subjected to any kind of ill-treatment and harassment by the accused persons driving her to commit suicide. Hence, even though the accused persons have failed to prove the defence put forth by them that the deceased died of committing suicide, as her parents of deceased did not attend the ‘Hosalu Datu’/ the ceremony of child crossing the main door of the house for the first time, it cannot be considered that the prosecution has proved the offence charged against the accused persons, unless the above referred ingredients are made out against the accused persons to come to conclusion that the prosecution has proved that the accused persons committed offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

73. Further, as there is no evidence forthcoming on record from the prosecution to prove that the alleged ornaments and other properties given by P.W.1 to the accused No.1 in the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1 are in the form of dowry allegedly demanded and taken by the accused person, no case can be made out against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 3 and 4 of the Act. Moreover, from the evidence of P.W.1 itself it is clear that for the period of 9 months from the date of marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1, the deceased did not go to her parent’s house. This evidence on record shows that there was no question the deceased being subjected to any kind of physical and mental cruelty at the hands of accused persons and hence, there is no evidence to prove that the accused persons subjected the deceased to any cruelty within the meaning of Sec.498-A of IPC. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that the accused No.4 was residing with the accused No.1 and 3 when the deceased was residing with the accused No.1. Hence, there is absolutely no case made out against the accused No.4 for any of the offences charged against him in the case.

74. It is true that the charge is also framed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. But there is no evidence forthcoming from the prosecution to prove that there was any intention with the accused persons and thereby they caused death of the deceased with the knowledge that any ill-treatment allegedly meted out by the accused persons would cause the death of the deceased. Hence, there can be no case made out against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC also. Further, when the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons have committed offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, the question of accused persons committing offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC also does not arise.

75. Further, the counsel for accused persons has relied on the decision of our Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reported in LAWS KAR 2003 8 104 (State of Karnataka Vs S.B. Lokesh and Ors.) and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2009) 10 SCC 206 (Arulvelu and Another Vs State). As submitted by the counsel for accused persons, in view of the principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions it is clear that if two views are favourable from the evidence forthcoming on record the view which is favourable to the accused persons should be taken into consideration. Hence, from the discussions made herein above, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons committed any of the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of the Act.

76. It is not in dispute that the deceased died of committing suicide in the house of accused No.1 within 7 years from the date of her marriage. As submitted by the learned Prosecutor, in such case as per Sec.113-B of Evidence Act, there is presumption as to dowry death. However, unless the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt the ingredients of Sec.304-B of IPC against the accused persons, mere presumption under Sec.113-B of Evidence Act does not merit consideration to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC.

77. The cumulative effect of the evidence forthcoming from the prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons demanded and took dowry from the parents of the deceased in the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1 and that thereafter the accused persons subjected the deceased to any physical and mental harassment and cruelty demanding to bring further dowry in the form of site and motor cycle. The prosecution has also utterly failed toprove beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased died of committing suicide due to any such ill-treatment and harassment by the accused persons. It is settled principle of law that the accused persons are entitled to benefit of such doubt. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove points No.1 to 4 and therefore, the points No.1 to 4 are answered in the negative.

78. Point No.5: From the discussion made herein above, it is clear that the accused No.1, 3 and 5 deserve to be acquitted of the offence charged against them 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 No.1, 3 and 4 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sec.498-A r/w Sec.34 and 304-B r/w Sec.302 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

This case against accused No.2 is dismissed as abated.

and 4 and the surety bond shall stand cancelled.

The properties at M.O.1 to M.O.3 shall be destroyed as worthless after expiry of appeal time.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 30th day of November, 2018) (T.N. INAVALLY) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46) ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution: P.W.1: Hari Krishna P.W.2: Chandrashekaraiah P.W.3: Chandramma P.W.4: Ananthamurthy P.W.5: Lakshmi P.W.6: Krishna Prasad P.W.7: Guru Prasad P.W.8: Krishnappa P.W.9: Subramani P.W.10: Abhilash P.W.11: Venugopal P.W.12: Manjula P.W.13: Nagaraja P.W.14: Prashanth P.W.15: Krishna Y.B.

P.W.16: Narayanappa P.W.17: Anjaneyalu P.W.18: Nagabhushan P.W.19: Ammajamma P.W.20: Sandeep P.W.21: Rajendra Kumar A.B.

P.W.22: M.P. Zameer.

List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Notice Ex.P.3: Panchanama Ex.P.4: Panchanama Ex.P.5: Wedding card Ex.P.6 to 13: Photos Ex.P.14 & 15: Receipts Ex.P.16: conditions of choultry Ex.P.17: Jewelry receipt Ex.P.18: Tax invoice Ex.P.19: Panchanama Ex.P.20 to 26 : Photos Ex.P.27: C.D.

Ex.P.28: Post mortem report Ex.P.29: Sketch Ex.P.30: Statement of P.W.11 Ex.P.31: Lease agreement Ex.P.32: Statement of P.W.12 Ex.P.33: Statement of P.W.16 Ex.P.34: Statement of P.W.18 Ex.P.35: Statement of P.W.20 Ex.P.36: FIR Ex.P.37: Sketch Ex.P.38: Voluntary statement of accused List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:

NIL List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused: Ex.D.1: Statement of portion of P.W.18 Ex.D.2 & D.3: R.C.

Ex.D.4: Tax Invoice Ex.D.5: Bank statement Ex.D.6: Car loan payment statement Ex.D.7: Bank statement of accused No.1.

Ex.D.8: Employment offer letter Ex.D.9: Pay slip Ex.D.10: Marriage certificate of accused No.2 Ex.D.11: Ration card Ex.D.12: Bank statement of accused No.2.

Ex.D.13: Bank statement of accused No.2 Ex.D.14: Bank statement of accused No.3.

Ex.D.15: Sale deed Ex.D.16: R.C. copy Ex.D.17: G-mail copy Ex.D.18: Letter from Can fin Home Ltd.

Ex.D.19: Letter Ex.D.20 to 29: Photos and memory card Ex.D.30: Photo bills Ex.D.31: Letter List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution: M.O.1: Saree M.O.2: Steel knife M.O.3: Rope.

(T.N. INAVALLY) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH 46)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s