Bangalore District Court
R.T.Nagar Police Station vs On Anticipatory Bail on 10 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF LVI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SRI.HATTIKAL PRABHU.S.
M.A.,LL.B(Spl) LL.M.,
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JUNE 2019
JUDGMENT
U/Sec. 355 of the Cr.P.C Serial Number of the C.C.11526/2017 case Name of the State by Police Sub Inspector, complainant R.T.Nagar Police Station.
(Reptd. by Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor ) Name of the accused Girish.N, person/s S/o.N.W.Muddaiah , Aged about 45 years, R/at.No.A4, 1st floor, Savitha Apartment, Mariyappa Block, 1st cross, Dinnur Main road, R.T.Nagar, Bangalore.
(Rept by Sri.M.G....Adv..,) Offences complained U/Secs.498, 323 of the IPC. of Charge framed for the U/Secs.498, 323 of the IPC..
offences
Date of 21.01.2017
commencement of
offence
Date of arrest of Accused is not arrested, he is
accused on anticipatory bail
C.C.11526/2017
2
Date of release of 30.11.2017
accused
Date of
commencement of 28.11.2018
recording evidence
Date of closure of 17.05.2019
recording evidence
Plea of the accused Not Guilty
and his examination :
Offences proved Nil
Final Order : Accused found guilty for the
offence punishable U/s 323 of
the IPC. Offence U/Sec.498A of the IPC is not proved.
Date of final order 11.06.2019 I. Brief statement of reasons for the decision:
1. In ordrer to prove the guilt of the accused, the informant of crime/ C.W.1 Smt.Rajani who is wife of accused examined as P.W.1. C.W.2 one Pemmaiah who is father of C.W1 is examined as P.W.3. C.W.3-
Smt.Poovamma ie mother of C.W.1 is examined as P.W.5.
C.W.6 one Ruma Adithya and C.W.7 Smt.Susheela examined as P.W.2 and 6 respectively claiming to be spot mahazar witnesses.
C.C.11526/2017 3 The complaint, spot mahazar are marked as Ex.P.1 and 2 through P.W.1.
2. The prosecution failed to secure C.W.5 Master Somaiah-who is son of C.W.1, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities. C.W.8-IO is also not secured and examined.
After giving sufficient opportunities, examination of C.W.5 and 8 came to be dropped.
3. During course of trial, the defence of accused is total denial of the case of the prosecution as to harassment and as to assault by accused, against C.W.1.
4. Under the circumstances, at this juncture I feel it relevant to reproduce Sec.498(A), 319 and 323 of the IPC and the interpretation of the word "proved" U/s 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under:
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means
--
C.C.11526/2017 4
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]
319. Hurt.--Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.--Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Sec.3 of the Indian Evidence Act:
"Proved". A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
C.C.11526/2017 5
5. On careful perusal of the Sec.498A of the IPC, this court observed that in order to attract the offence U/Sec. 498A of the IPC, there should be an act of harassing the wife, with intention to make her to commit suicide or for demanding property or valuable things. In this present case on hand, there is no allegation against accused that accused harassed the C.W.1 with intention to make her commit suicide or to extract property or valuable things. It is allegation against accused that C.W.1 was chatting with her friend, accused suspected C.W.1 and was harassing C.W.1. These allegations are not attracting offence U/Sec.498(A) of the IPC. Apart from that, after going through the evidence placed on record, this court observed that the evidence placed on record is not establishing that the accused harassed his wife/C.W.1, demanding for property or valuable things or he had intention to force the complainant to commit suicide etc., Hence this court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to make out case against accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498A of the IPC.
C.C.11526/2017 6
6. Now the question which remains for consideration is whether the prosecution proves that on 21.01.2017 at about 8.00PM, the accused without any provocation, assaulted C.W.1 with hands on her face and caused simple injury. In this background I have carefully scrutinized both the oral and documentary evidence placed on record.
7. It is specific case of the prosecution that on 21.01.2017 at about 8.00 P.M, the accused picked up quarrel with C.W.1 for the reason that C.W.1 was chatting with some other person and at that time C.W.1 proceeded to take TV remote. At that time accused assaulted the C.W.1 on her face with hands and caused simple injury near the eye. This specific allegation is mentioned in Ex.P.1 complaint. In Ex.P.2 spot mahazar also these facts are reflected, since C.W.1 explained these facts in the presence of mahazar witnesses, the statement of eye witnesses recorded U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C also reflects the same. The P.W.1 who is injured person in her chief examination explained the very same facts. The evidence C.C.11526/2017 7 of P.W.1 is supported by the evidence of her father/ P.W.3, evidence of her mother/P.W.5 and evidence of her younger brother/P.W.4.
8. During course of trial, defence of accused is that the C.W.1 filed petition in Crl.Misc. 13/17 on the file of the VI MMTC seeking maintenance of Rs.50 lakhs, just 02 days prior to lodging this complaint. It is defence of the accused that C.W.1 in order to strengthen her case, this false complaint is lodged.
9. During course of arguments, learned counsel for accused argued that the P.W.2 and 6 spot mahazar witnesses not fully supported the case of the prosecution and P.W.1, 3, 4 and 5 are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be looked into in the absence of corroborating evidence of independent witnesses.
10. Considering the entire material placed on record and considering the arguments submitted on both sides, this court finds no reason to believe that the C.W.1 lodged C.C.11526/2017 8 false complaint against her husband. Apart from that the evidence of P.W.1 is totally corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3, 4, and 5. Considering the evidence placed on record in the light of the interpretation of the word Proved, which is defined U/Sec. 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, this court does not find reasons to disbelieve or suspect the case of the prosecution as to occurrence of the incident of assault by the accused as alleged and as to causing simple hurt on the C.W.1 without any provocation. With these observations, this court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 of the IPC. But the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.498(A) of the IPC.
II. Final Order:
Acting U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C I hereby acquit the accused for the offence punishable U/s 498A of the IPC.
Acting U/Sec. 248(2) of Cr.P.C I hereby convict the accused for the C.C.11526/2017 9 offence punishable U/Sec. 323 of the IPC.
Matter is posted for hearing before sentence.
(Judgment dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11 th day of June 2019).
(Hattikal Prabhu .S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Heard the accused and Learned
Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor on imposing sentence.
The accused prayed for taking lenient view.
Considering the circumstances of the case and nature of the offences, this court comes to the conclusion that if the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only), for the proved offence, it would meet the ends of justice. With this observation I proceed to pass the following ...
C.C.11526/2017 10 ORDER The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) for the offence punishable U/Sec. 323 of the IPC, in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 07 days.
The bail bond of the accused stands canceled.
(Order dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of June 2019).
(Hattikal Prabhu .S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.
ANNEXURE:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1-Smt.Rajani P.W.2-Smt.Ruma Adithya P.W.3-Sri.Pemmaiah P.W.4-Smt.S.P.Poovanna P.W.5-Smt.S.Poovamma P.W.6-Smt.Susheela
2. List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.1(a): Signature Ex.P.2: Mahazar Ex.P.2(a,b): Signatures C.C.11526/2017 11
3.:- List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused Nil
4. List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Nil (Hattikal Prabhu.S) LVI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore.