Bangalore District Court
State By Yelahanka Police Station vs No. : 1. T.R. Sunil Kumar on 31 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE 44TH ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 31st day of MARCH 2018
:PRESENT:
Smt. Mala N.D., B.A.L., LL.B.,
44th ACMM, Bengaluru
C.C.No.13489/2012
Complainant : State by Yelahanka Police station
(By Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor)
-V/s-
Accused No. : 1. T.R. Sunil Kumar
S/o B. Ramaiah,
Aged about 30 years
2. B. Ramaiah,
S/o Late Buddaiah,
Aged about 62 years
3. Smt. Tulasamma,
W/o B. Ramaiah,
Aged about 51 years
Accused No.1 to 3 are
R/at No.678, 8th Cross,
9th Main, HBR Layout,
2nd Block, Bengaluru.
4. Smt. Prathima,
W/o Byanna,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.C-76, 1st Stage,
Industrial Township 581400,
2 C.C. No.13489/2012
Uttara Kannada District.
(By Sri. Ambaji Rao, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Yelahanka Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/s. 498(A),
504. 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
It is alleged that, in the year 2009 C.W. 4 Sri. Muninarayanappa and C.W. 5 Smt. S. Indiramma, being residents of Judicial Layout, within the limits of Yelahanka Police Station, were searching a bridegroom for their daughter C.W. 1 Smt. Vimala, when things stood thus, C.W. 20 Sri. Hanumappa a known person to C.W.4 and 5 brought an alliance of accused persons to their daughter. As such, marriage talks were held, accused persons did not demanded anything except performing marriage. Thereafter, on 19/11/2009 C.W. 4 and 5 performed engagement of C.W. 1 with accused No.1 at Tata Institute Hall. After engagement, accused persons demanded parents of C.W. 1 to give 5 acres of land, Rs. 5 lakhs cash as dowry, otherwise they will break the marriage. As 3 C.C. No.13489/2012 parents of C.W. 1 were unable to give dowry, cancelled the said marriage of C.W. 1 with accused No.1. Later, accused No.1 contacted C.W. 1 over phone, revealed his wish to marry her, saying that, he is not interested in taking any dowry. In that connection, on 30/01/2010, accused No.1 took C.W. 1 to Ganesha temple, situated at Ramakrishna Nagar, Mysore, married her, after marriage, C.W. 1 started residing with accused persons at house bearing No.678, situated at 9th Main, 8th Cross, HBR Layout, Bengaluru. During that time, accused persons in furtherance of common intention, did not provide her food, used to pick up quarrel with her for trivial reasons, forced her to bring Rs.5 lakhs as dowry, abused her in filthy language, subjected her to both physical and mental harassment, as such C.W. 1 being disgusted, started residing in her parents house, accused persons visited the parents house of C.W. 1, again demanded them to give Rs. 5 lakhs cash, if they fail to give amount, they will perform another marriage to accused No.1, posed threat to the life of C.W. 1 with dire consequences, thereafter father of C.W. 1 gave Rs.50,000/- to accused persons, requested them to look after his daughter well. Inspite of giving money, accused persons left 4 C.C. No.13489/2012 C.W. 1 in the house of her parents, sent a legal notice to her, when C.W. 1 went to the house of accused persons, they did not allow C.W. 1 to enter inside their house, subjected her to mental cruelty and thereby committed aforesaid offences. Therefore, complainant C.W. 1 Smt. Vimala has lodged complaint against accused persons before jurisdictional police. As such, this case came to be registered against accused persons. During the course of investigation I.O. visited the place of incident, drawn spot mahazar in the presence of the witnesses, recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused No.1 to 4 are on bail and they are represented through their counsel.
4. The copies of the prosecution papers have been furnished to the accused as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The cognizance of the offences punishable U/sec. 498(A), 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act has been taken as per Sec.190 of Cr.P.C.
5. The charge is framed, contents of charge have been read over and explained to the accused persons in the language known to 5 C.C. No.13489/2012 them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution is called upon to prove its case.
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined two witnesses as P.W. 1 and 2 and got marked nine documents at Ex.P1 to P.9. At this stage, it is brought to court notice that, complainant being the wife of accused No.1 has arrived at a settlement with accused by obtaining mutual divorce. As such, C.W. 1 is not intending to prosecute the case against them. Therefore, keeping the future of both complainant and accused persons in mind, the evidence of other witnesses has been dropped as not required by rejecting the prayer of the prosecution.
7. Thereafter, the statement of accused persons as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded, wherein they have denied the incriminating evidence adduced against them and have not chosen to lead their side defense evidence. Hence, posted for arguments.
8. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on record.
6 C.C. No.13489/2012
9. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, in the year 2009 C.W. 4 Sri. Muninarayanappa and C.W. 5 Smt. S. Indiramma being residents of Judicial Layout, within the limits of Yelahanka Police Station, were searching a bridegroom for their daughter C.W. 1 Smt. Vimala. When things stood thus, C.W. 20 Sri. Hanumappa a known person to C.W.4 and 5 brought an alliance of accused persons to their daughter.
As such, marriage talks were held, accused persons did not demanded anything except performing marriage. Thereafter, on 19/11/2009 C.W. 4 and 5 performed engagement of C.W. 1 with accused No.1 at Tata Institute Hall. After engagement, accused persons demanded parents of C.W. 1 to give 5 acres of land, Rs. 5 lakhs cash as dowry, otherwise they will break the marriage. As parents of C.W. 1 were unable to give dowry, cancelled the said marriage of C.W. 1 with accused No.1. Later, accused No.1 contacted C.W. 1 over phone, revealed his wish to marry her, he is not interested in taking any dowry. In that connection, on 30/01/2010, accused No.1 took C.W. 1 to Ganesha temple, situated at Ramakrishna Nagar, Mysore, married her, after marriage, C.W. 1 started residing with accused persons at house bearing No.678, situated at 9th Main, 8th Cross, HBR Layout, Bengaluru. During that time, accused persons in furtherance of common intention, did not provide her food, used to pick up quarrel with her for trivial reasons, forced her to bring Rs.5 lakhs as dowry, subjected her to both physical and 7 C.C. No.13489/2012 mental harassment, as such C.W. 1 being disgusted, started residing in her parents house, accused persons visited the parents house of C.W. 1, again demanded them to give Rs. 5 lakhs cash, if they fail to give amount, they will perform another marriage to accused No.1, thereafter father of C.W. 1 gave Rs.50,000/- to accused persons, requested them to look after his daughter well. Inspite of giving money, accused persons left C.W. 1 in the house of her parents, sent a legal notice to her, when C.W. 1 went to the house of accused persons, they did not allow C.W. 1 to enter inside their house, subjected her to mental cruelty and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.498(A) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, accused persons in furtherance of common intention, abused C.W. 1 in filthy language and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 504 r/w 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, accused persons in furtherance of common intention, posed threat to the life of C.W. 1 Smt. Vimala with dire consequences and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 r/w 34 of IPC?
8 C.C. No.13489/2012
4. What Order?
10. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.2 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.3 : IN THE NEGATIVE
Point No.4 : As per final order for the following
REASONS
11. Points No.1 to 3 : All these points involve similar set of facts and circumstances, hence, taken up together for common discussion.
12. This case has been registered against accused persons on the background of dowry harassment said to have been caused on the complainant by accused No.1 and his family members. In this connection, the prosecution has cited as many as 26 witnesses and successful in examining two witnesses as P.W. 1 and 2. Complainant C.W. 1 is examined as P.W. 1. During the course of evidence, in the beginning she has supported the prosecution case and deposed similar to that of her complaint averments. In the mean time, it is brought to the court notice that, complainant being 9 C.C. No.13489/2012 wife of accused No.1, has arrived at a settlement with the accused persons by obtaining mutual divorce in M.C. No.370/2017, before the Family Court, Bengaluru. As such, complainant P.W. 1 is not intending to prosecute the case against accused persons. Therefore, P.W. 1 in her cross-examination has admitted that there was no any harassment as stated by her in the complaint. It is elicited in the re- examination that, she has arrived at a settlement with the accused persons.
13. In addition, father of complainant Sri. Muninarayanappa is examined as P.W. 2. Inspite of giving opportunities, C.W. 4/P.W. 2 has not tendered for cross-examination and due to the settlement arrived between the parties, he is discharged from deposing the evidence by rejecting the prayer of learned Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor.
14. That apart, Since the alleged offences against accused persons are non-compoundable, this court has formally recorded the evidence of complainant by keeping the future life of complainant as well as accused persons, dropped the evidence of other witnesses as not required by rejecting the prayer of prosecution. Under the 10 C.C. No.13489/2012 circumstances, the charges leveled against accused persons in connection with dowry harassment remains unproved. As such the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons with cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence. Therefore, above point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
15.Point No.2 In view of the negative findings on the above point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.498(A), 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
The bail & bail bonds of the accused and sureties shall stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 31st day of March 2018).
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.11 C.C. No.13489/2012
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION P.W. 1: Smt. Vimala P.W. 2: Muninarayana
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION Ex.P. 1to5 : Photos Ex.P. 2 : Photo Ex.P.7 : Legal notice Ex.P.8 : Complaint Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of P.W. 1 Ex.P.9 : Mahazar Ex.P.9(a) : Signature of P.W. 1
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION NIL (Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.12 C.C. No.13489/2012
Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.498(A), 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
The bail & bail bonds of the accused and sureties shall stands cancelled.
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.