Bangalore District Court
Station vs To 3 Are Acquitted on 8 November, 2021
1
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 8th day of November 2021.
Present: SRI.SHANKARAPPA B.MALASHETTI
B.com., LL.B.(Spl)
XXXI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.2710-2021
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 2710/2021
2. The date of commission In between 24/11/2014 to
of the offence 28/08/2019
3. Name of the State by Bagalagunte Police
complainant Station .
4. Name of the accused 1.Venu.R, S/o.B.Ramaiah, 40 years,
2.Jayalakshmi, W/o.B.Ramaiah, 57
years.
3.B.Ramaiah, S/o.Byalappa, 70
years.
All are R/at No.1467, I Cross,
T.Dasarahalli, Bengaluru.
5. The offence complained U/sec. 498(A), 506 r/w 34 of IPC
of or proved and Section - 3 & 4 of D.P. Act
6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilt
and his examination
7. State represented by: Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor,
Bengaluru.
8. Accused represented Sri.VKS Advocate, Bengaluru.
by:
9. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC
Accused-1 to 3 are acquitted.
10. Date of such order 08/11/2021
For the following:-
2
JUDGMENT
The PSI, Bagalagunte Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 498(A), 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section - 3 & 4 of D.P. Act
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
Accused married CW.1 on 24/08/2014 as per the customs prevailed in their community at the time of marriage her parents had given gold ornaments weighing about 400 grams and silver articles as dowry. Thereafter she started residing with accused -1 along with accused -2 and 3 at House No.1467, T.Dasarahalli, within the jurisdiction of Bagalagunte Police Station and later accused -1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention to commit an offence ill-treated her physically and mentally and also harassed her for demand additional dowry. On 28.06.2015 at about 3 p.m. when CW.1 has informed accused -2 and 3 that accused -1 has not given any physical pleasure, but the accused -2 and 3 threatened her not to disclose the said fact and thereby committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused -1 to 3 are on bail. As required u/sec. 207 of Cr.PC, the copies of the charge sheet papers were furnished to the accused. Charge framed for the offences punishable U/sec. 498(A), 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section - 3 & 4 of D.P. Act., which was readover and explained to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be 3 tried. Then the prosecution examined PWs:1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P3. On closure of the prosecution evidence, as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, the statement of the accused u/sec. 313 Cr.PC is dispensed with
4. I have heard the arguments from both the sides .
5. The following points that arise for my consideration are:
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused married CW.1 on 24/08/2014 as per the customs prevailed in their community. At the time of marriage her parents had given gold ornaments weighing about 400 grams and silver articles as dowry. Thereafter she started residing with accused -1 along with accused -2 and 3 at House No.1467, T.Dasarahalli, within the jurisdiction of Bagalagunte Police Station and thereafter accused -1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention to commit an offence ill-
treated her physically and mentally and also harassed her for demand additional dowry and thereby committed the offences punishable U/s. 498(A) r/w 34 of IPC and Section
- 3 & 4 of DP Act.?
4
2) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused-1 being the husband of CW.1 along with accused -2 and 3 in furtherance of common intention to commit an offence ill-treated CW.1 mentally and physically and on 28.06.2015 at about 3 p.m. when CW.1 has informed accused -2 and 3 that accused -1 has not given any physical pleasure, but the accused -2 and 3 threatened her with dire consequences thus committed criminal intimidation and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 506 r/w 34 of IPC.?
3) What order?
6.My finding on the above points are held as under:
Point No.1 & 2: In the negative Point No.3: As per final order for the following:
5 REASONS
7.Point Nos.1& 2 :-
The above two points are inter linked to each other hence, I took the two points together for consideration in order to avoid repeatation.
In order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2. PWs.1 and 2 have fully turned hostile in toto to the case of the prosecution. PW.1, who being the complainant has deposed in her evidence that the accused -1 is her husband, accused
-2 and 3 are her in- laws and they neither ill-treated her physically or mentally nor demanded any kind of dowry. She further deposed that, accused have not put any life threat to her. She further deposed that due to misunderstanding between her and accused persons she had been to Police Station and lodged complaint as per Ex.P1 and signed on document as per Ex.P2, but she does not know the contents of the Ex.P.1 and Ex.P2. PW.2 being the father of CW.1 he has also deposed in consonance with the evidence of PW.1. PW.2 denied that he has given statement as per Ex.P3.
8.Even after cross examination of P.W.1 and 2, nothing has been elicited from their mouth and PW.1 admitted that she compromised the matter with the accused and got mutual consent Divorce in M.C. No.4692/2019 and she do not wish to continue the proceedings against the accused. When the complainant herself doesn't wish to continue the 6 proceedings against the accused, there is no point in continuing with the proceedings. Therefore, prayer of learned Sr.APP is rejected and evidence of other witnesses is dropped. Further, when the parties have compromised the matter, it would be justified if the matter is dealt in accordance with the materials available on record as it would cause no injustice to anybody rather it would meet the ends of justice and doing justice is the solemn duty of the Court. Accordingly, my answer to the above points are in the negative.
9.Point No.3:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused -1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec. 498(A), 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section - 3 & 4 of D.P. Act .
Bail bonds of accused and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 8th day of November 2021.) (Shankarappa B.Malashetti) XXXI Addl.C.M.M.,Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution: P. Ws:
1. Smt.Pushpalatha
2. Thimmegowda.
7
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.Ps:
1. Complaint
2. Mahazar
3. Statement of PW.2
3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
-NIL -
4.List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused: -NIL -
XXXI Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru.
8 Judgment pronounced in the open court. (vide separate order):
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused -1 to 3 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec. 498(A), 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section - 3 & 4 of D.P. Act .
Bail bonds of accused and their surety bonds stand cancelled after six months from today.
31st Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
9 10 11