JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

Heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also the counsel for defacto complainant and State on behalf of the appellant in both the appeals and counsel for the respondent in revision and also the respondent in appeal.

2. The Crl.R.P.No.83/2013 is filed by the complainant against the order dated 25.09.2012 passed in S.C.No.107/2010 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Ramanagara in discharging the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and prayed this Court to direct the Trial Court to continue the proceedings against accused Nos.2 to 4.

3. The Crl.A.No.450/2018 is filed by the complainant against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.10.2017 passed in S.C.No.131/2006 by the 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramangara for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘DP Act’) and prayed this Court to convict the accused persons for the said offences.

4. The Crl.A.No.740/2018 is filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 28.10.2017 passed in S.C.No.131/2006 by the 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the DP Act and prayed this Court to convict the accused persons for the said offences.

5. The complainant/appellant before the Trial Court in PCR No.60/2005 made an allegation that the police have not properly conducted the investigation and failed to invoke the offence under Section 302 of IPC and only filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, the complainant prayed the Court to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, since there is a specific allegation against the accused persons, apart from dowry harassment and subjecting her for harassment and cruelty. In page No.3 of the complaint, specific allegation is made that on 07.10.2004, the accused persons have committed the murder of the daughter of complainant and grandson. It is alleged that when he went to the spot, he found both the dead bodies with injuries. The Tahsildar has conducted the inquest on both the dead bodies and found the injuries over the dead body of Madhu near the left ear the pressing wound and near the eye and the same is also mentioned in the inquest and injuries found on the chest of his daughter, which is red in colour and in the grandson's dead body also, injuries were found near the neck and chin. The doctor who conducted the post mortem given the opinion in the report that cause of death of the daughter of the complainant is on account of suicidal hanging and it is a case of murder of his grandson by throttling. Hence, it is very clear that the death of his grandson is a murder. But police did not invoke the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC in respect of the grandson and not conducted the proper investigation by the Channapatna Rural Police and case was also entrusted to the COD. While conducting the mahazar also taken note of height of place where bodies were hanging with the sarees which were used to hang them and clear distance is also mentioned and sarees which were used to hang them was also seized. Even COD Police also not properly conducted the investigation and only invoked the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 and other offences.

6. It is contended in the complaint that when his grandson was murdered by throttling, what was the need to hang him and there was a injury on the back side of his neck measuring 6 inches x 1 inch. It appears that a club was kept on the back side of the neck and pressed the neck from front side. If the child is hanged,