IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
mrren THIS THE 133'" DAY 0:: JANUARY, ::'o059;:._f _
Bemaa A
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAQVAE' A
CRi..R.P. N0..,='337 o3a2e*oa
BETWEEN: %
1 ROCKY FERNANDES ; _
s/9 LATE KASHMIRMKNANGES.
55 YEARS,R/AT KU?iDAP{_JR;» mm; k
unupzazsmxcr. % j
PETITIONER
{BY MR s.¢*§HAG1AvAw, ADV.) x
AND: _ % * %
1 3Afv1ES ]fma6;s¢o%SELci5zAakk:.<§ao
PAQU, GGVADI SCHOUL
IN. _(a'04PAD_'r"' NDAPUR TALUK.
2 SMT F'HVILOMIfiA..V£Gfi§3. 85 YEARS.
.'»".'!Q BELCHAR LGBQ, RJAT "SONA SADANA",
_~ ' EAR vMAHiiD.E\fI. VSHAJANA MANDIRA,
pA£3EEi~L,A MANGALQRE. _
'V L080. AGED 41 YEARS.
A WW,/Ci --.§AMTES LGBO,R/AT PADUGOPADI HOUSE
INv_'.ۤ9V?ADYVILLAGE, KUNDAPUR TALUK,
4 IHESTATE or KARNATAKABY THE sus
AA ' ._Ih£SPECTOR. OF POLICE, KUNDAPUR POLICE
" - _ STAT'ION,KUNDAPURA,UD%JPI msmcr.
RESPGNDENTS
(BY SR1 RNA SUBRAMANYA BHAT, HCGP FOR R4)
***
fig,»
P-.5!
THIS PETITION 15 mm U/5.397 RIW. SEC;I”–.401
c:R..P.c av me ADVOCATE ma ms we-nnoaeea ..!=’RA¥Ib£G
THAT mxs Horwae cczuar MAY BE pLeAsgo%m% seat
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT 8: ORDER E>T.19.1Z.200_73PAS3E’£3
THE 9.6., FTC, UDUPI IN S.C.N0.27/95 AN9 ‘REMAHD
MATTER BACK ‘re THE c:c;>um’ 8ELOW””‘FC>?.”‘-F1§£SH”‘ u
CONSIDERATION, ETC.,
‘ms PETITION ARE C;GMIN§ FoR%%Aamsézanak
THIS DAY THIS couacr MADE”T}-:–§FOLL{)WIN$_;-
This revision is diré.E:’;edj.u’daement in S.C.
Ne. 2712005 passed r;2.:°;’3.”::i’ae Judge, Fast
Track Ccvurt Nas. 1 tan 3
for the S’é;:tian 304 and 306 IPC.
2′.–,_ ._ The ‘i*:w.’;.-i;$:e§iT»i’$._§§sted for admifision.
3. ._T”ne ‘r1′:a i;”e%i:?:f’i.?s:.i’:éfiééations can the basis of which
V the :fc;s:2andei2ts._._i ‘tb wére arraéaneci, tried and acquitted
cma9ragg.:n Jahn Lebe committed suicide on 22-31»-
_ 20fi 5._at ,_as’t«a,§éi 8~3£tPM by ccmsummq pctson. Death af Lobe
“””~.. $2vasL rémzgted by the petitioner harem to the jurisdictienai
i::c;’£i¢:e:,}” which was treated as FIR and the case was
mfiistered. During invfitiaatian thrcmch statement cf the
aetitianer herein and other witnesses the Inves£}_’a§tE.uq
Officer apirsed that the raspandents 1 tr: 3
causing mentai torture to Lobo with»..saig u’sur:at’A
the property left by cane Florida ahfiiv ta
ieeitimate share and thus ais’-2 t_}e’:’€.i.__s*»t.:i¢’:Ai’r:’£»~.=;.:-_. VI_:jfn° ‘of-
that object they azapeafi tc i1a§f_e.VVi:erpat_ua£é€i’«mersfiél cruefty
and threat continuousm.V:7u.21a!:ie:.,’tn”‘£25?-;g2s.if’::1;ch tertumus act
Lobe consumed 11″z*.-“>ffer’:::».a zaunishabie under Secticm
SeEtia–n—-«34 IPC. During triai the prosecution
$e:V2 a:_htA the charge through the testimcmy of Puma
Féi<n1éhde$.'§e_f§iiéner herein as Pwl, Sar.Jaci<:!ine as Pwz,
"Avfi'eiǤnVe Montheiro as W3 and other witnessw who
V' " _'i:'QAA:¢f5V( "1'~.'§3i"iZ in the mvestieatien tike inquest, spot mahazar,
W
5. During mat the accused reited on4v..ais’»-{fetter
addressed by PW2 – Sr.Ja<:kiir:e to Dr. Karamh;:"'fi§ar§§§s _
E:x.91, intlmatinu to tha docgpr reasr.§is2:j"A*~::mer§tsi*«
disturbance of the deceased. Sf};
speiied out that the deceased.___was”‘
fieiaility and was not In_ r’t is received as FIR and
case viéaisi .Nc..16/2005. Weiahino the
evidénge i:if”ti’ie< pifcasécimviiih against defence en' the accused,
:_oAurtAA"'fc+a::«ci it did not estabiish the charge,
L1'c§ij's'aqu.:§fiti'*y2:th.e accused have beer: acquitim.
" Th~§3;"iearned csunsei far petitioner wouid contend
H V' . tha£"'invé$iia'$tian had revealed tarturcus act pernetuaim by
'it'A"'lVti:eL._§cai1§ed compeiiing the deceased to» take extrema step-
's;u'i:r:ide to amid not oniy mental terture but the physical
Vi "'e3fisiaueht by the accused. This, according to tha iearned
gwib
counsel it canstitutes abatement as it was the reason for the
deceased to take the extreme step. To estaelhieh ill
treatment meted out ta the deceased, it waseu;
that accusae No.1 ta 3 had designed ta
cf the family and ta deprive the';
share.
9. Reference is made’e:’V”‘ta e’§’ld«ehce and’
statement af the ,_fEach.l’a”ne:_j’ef”tlje5nAlfiaveeeaaken of
several incidents in walla:-3 ,a_a’cfiueat3 are said to have
treatec§’l”tfie-..eie;eaeed evidence of We —
Dlneshae fhe learned counsel reveals
etherwieehezn”e3§Varfiinai:i–an of the statement of PW4 –
isaeeéi ‘thathe does net say that at any point of
had revealed to him the mental agony he
fa’ce£i«atv_léaads ef accused er the manner in which the
‘V._’ac:ueedv””had harassed him. I am unable ta accwt the
VA “~ilfceat’eat¥oa of the learned counsel that evidence of PW4 ~–
A’ ifiigneaha establishes the charge.
(%,Q/
10; PW5— Mehammad, another witnas of the
pmsecution, reveais of his visit to the misuse cfV.#§§:u$ed
119.1 prior to the Incident seeking favaur _
eiearicity supbiy ta cme Harrfeed. It onEy..sh§§§2Vs $.-fitéz-AnZ.
visited the hausa of accused Naéél,
infarmed him that the a:cuse~.3.§.do.1A”?2_§d ‘treaVtéd!..iij_;§q ” .
and thus had consumed poIs}6’n.;_V’?’ If that. 5:; It is not
expiained why PW5 di¢:.’i _:”i<:xt 'i'n.fonnéiio n pubiic or
to the dose reiatives. made Is that
he had informedgéfitaséxd a'hd"'.'§:: ifiat…¢.§§éceased — Lobe had
cansurffed t.i.:' V<t~.'-,'+?vv__:'e_i'::::_!’é~:.._:?1:f.i*s«’.a’-‘ir’s the deceased is said to have
discitfsseezi ca’1ii9§éAAt:f.v”hi§- déath and It wauid have been the
‘-¢yVifia :’dééc!ara§!on iiiéiihv his death. But, Investigating Officer
ms. ‘fi¢i. “af;c駣:é;i that materiai as dvlna declaration of the
detéiasefi-‘ ‘ ‘
11_g’i- It is aiso difficuit to beiieve that PW5 having
that the deceased had ccmsumed pefson wcuid do
V’ fifiéthina ta safe guard his life. Except the evidence of the
. witnessfi referred to a-have there is no other independent
332/
evidence aiaced by the prasecution to bring nexus between
the act ef the accusw I to 3 and cansequent deati’s’j’c:vf:’i;§:£§aA4.
12. In this ccmtext, this wauid be .
the contents cf the E”x.D1, fetter
Karanth, which reads thus: A ‘ A ‘ .’ V.
“Ma ngatwe-6
22-1 1-2064
Dear” Doctca’ i~(ai’a:”rt3fiA.~…_.”:%’* _
I am the :’efigrzEz3us matemai aunt bf Prr¢..b’gfat?3er :23 his uméi-tfs. house: From June
2394 to .fié;1gt:§.t’§2″?, “?ra’v_een stayed finfliangaior-e.
When .4012. fisztaua 3.2″‘, he brought the
medi€_:Et”.£% g£v¢.»;’:. Gzanwh of Bangafore ‘Dian:-3.0′ was
medicine givan’T’by m Bangalore. He is
raguiar in taking’-th£5’tat1@i before: going to bed.
V Fram fi.l3QL_tSt’13m, téii the above date (November 22″‘)
_ he was kepi as a paying guest to do a course at CGIHT
Vin; Hargalore. ‘H.–e—«czampieted this cemputar hardware
” ccattrae wifi recatva the certificate afiaer two months
about him is that;
{1}”he. not take 2.1;) the 0DtT&Cti9f§$ at once;
2.}_A§’-ie ma to *£%3§§&i may times and takes {om} time
~ ; (onewtwa hours) In the tmbt;
5(3) in the maminas even though he is awakened he
gomons#m§ngtiu?AMaflateIm’ttohi:rma#,rua
fiieegm tiii 9 AM
(4) ‘festentiav in the smmifig withir» an hour he went 4
times to the toast.
My
(5) He waiks about in the roam and doe’2$ not awfv ti?»-_
revise the hssons to comptete one subjmt in which
had fafieci in the final exam. He has brought L’ S ,
ticket fmm Br. T.M.A. Pa: Pvzfiytechnic Schooi. ..
(6) In the night, in his steep, he sucidefiiv
(7) Fro:*:’: three dam’; he has covefad éfiiy of A
her guide book on 8 advanced comrnunicatiam.
dam not revi$e from the _V ‘
AH this makes me understand that the nmfi:-ine’ that he
has, is not effective and heipfui tov.hi:¥::, some times.. he
smikes to himsatf. V he’ waikg about in his
room. He _to’~_hin%I3s§-3f.”‘–.§v’s’:;! ‘were mzrt able
to know what he taikzs. He sa+,ss”}7se cgfingt. bear to hear
tha r~:ca=i:”se of the his “ears are diffesamt
fmmothevsg’ – ‘
He aiéctriixtisf wofifc ffér weeks. ‘may
said that ize.is”$:éz_y’ and ‘daés not respond quicidy
and beézgves if he r;atf1_'{
¢¥;_3w,._; haiié’ ‘hi»rfi”t-é’ ‘i<ur':dépura to consuit you O¥"'I€2é
again as I f.S9i"tl1%t'}'£J.£1"€;OL§id give him regtfiar dcsas of
madigine, Tha »-zrcauid be 3 parmanmt cane: and
anabte~r;£n:.tc do wgrk comfertabsy.
. iiincszy hens vPt”a~gé:en and his fatha’.
A’ A *
(Sr, 3 ‘r-é.’3Hj5–a1c5<ue1§ne A.C.
Ntatemai aunt of Praveen Eohrz Loba)”
The. trim court has rightiy runticed from the
*.._ ;§:1tends of Ex.D1, it astabiishm the deceased was not
meratafiv stable and was suffering from certain disorda,
which affected his norrmai tivtna. The letter referrs ta
severai episeées during life of the deceased, whet hag: ‘éfifiawn
tack of interest In iife arad the fear msrtulred by
about his abnormai behaviar. The tetter a!so..$:i§rté§ié:sj:’§f 1’
fact that famiiv members were ‘ta
arxfiaaed and had put him V5rz__eEec.”tri§3!
showed ieast interest. The do§i’tnned V
that victim withdrew frcaifisjaclfi’i’§§$@jgr§§e.;1t antiwkeiét himself
aioof. Consequent, medigatiajfi to him under
meditai advlse;is’.a§s:b fntiy
14. “”” ‘nét”_”i’mii;:ate am! disaute in the
famtiy atgbithtts’at”5%ér§ss§ffie§§t._.’céused to the deceased. The
circumstantiezifi VM.;i¢i3_”th’¥é daceased died are reiatabie to
W5 fiiénta} “§ate?.” “‘Th.;e;,…accusec! have used cantents of Ex.D1
V.’ti:.:.ébs9hi§:”the-firseltes and to disown any act attributed to
t¥’eét1.*i’;’t’
ffie {earned triai judge has rightly accepted this
V’ “~ifa§vah”~«_impcrtant circumstancm painteé cut by the accused
Basgibie cause of death of the deceased.
‘V V “‘v.’Hfi§érefora, the Q!”i&V3i’IC& of the pwticner that the accused
(9»Q~./
1]
have been unjustifiably acquitted, is difficuit te;v~.V.a§§.:{:&pt.
Charge for the offence punishabie under
therefare, was mt fuiiy estai3iEshe_;i…. _Si:’:1i_%’3i*i”§’.r”*,.::’i;!%:§=s:I*a.ara:§
ievefled against the accused fof’*A:4th;é’t:}!Tén§:é~ j:t3u:fi£Is’ h’aii:1-.§e
under Section 304 IPC aisofings ri«.’_:~ §..V§.u:3;)oéf§’A éith%er ‘
alieaatians or evidence can i’e<:e_zf__df"."-».._
16. For the reaséfia’ I am satisfied
that the firming; fgc;’¢rdé§ .:t?1e«.i\r§Léj§~.c§§r’iSis just and needs
ma interfe:*ei~&’1&é_V,.”«~ . ” ” ”
17. in «ma maision fans anti it is
accardirsaiv dis7’rs1if3ss,=.d.” ._ ” .
Sd/-~
Judge