Bangalore District Court
(Represented By The Learned Senior App) vs For The Offences Punishable Under on 26 April, 2022
1 CC 872 OF 2018
IN THE COURT OF XLI (41ST) ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF APRIL 2022
PRESENT
SRI S.S.BHARATH M.A. LL.M.,
ST
XLI (41 ) ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU
CRIMINAL CASE NUMBER 872 OF 2018
BETWEEN
1. STATE represented by
Beguru Police. ....COMPLAINANT
(Represented by the learned Senior APP)
AND
1. NAVEEN BENALD S/o Anand Jarmiyas,
Major,
2. SMT.MARY JOY W/O Anand Jarmiyas
Major,
3. ANAND JARMIYAS
Aged about 55 years.
[Case against A3 has been abated,
as he has been reported dead]
All accused Nos.01 to 03 are
R/at No.502, Behind Church,
Begur Hobli, Bengaluru68.
....ACCUSED
(A1 and A2 represented by Smt.N.Girija., Advocate)
2 CC 872 OF 2018
BEGURU POLICE HAVE CHARGE SHEETED THE
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498(A), 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.
AFTER COMPLETION OF ADJUDICATION, THIS CASE
COMING ON FOR JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING...
Offences alleged u/s :498(A), 506 R/w Section 34
of IPC.
Charge sheet filed on : 03012017
Trial commenced on : 22042022
Trial completed on : 22042022
Judgment date : 26042022
Total duration : DaysMonths Years
23 03 05
JUDGMENT
1. Case of the prosecution is as under; The marriage of PW1 with accused No.1 came to be solemnized on 26/02/2014 at St.Anthony's Church, Bengaluru. PW1 started to live with accused No.1 husband and accused No.2 and 3her inlaws in a house located within Beguru limits, bearing its No.502, behind Begur Church. For the period of 06 months from the date of their marriage, they lived happily. But thereafter accused No.1 developed doubts on her and in the said backdrop, for silly 3 CC 872 OF 2018 reasons, he started to quarrel with PW1 and other accused herein also have supported his acts. On 19/11/2015 at about 07.00 p.m., these accused together have scolded her in filthy language asserting that their marriage has not been solemnized appropriately and their acts came to be resisted by PW1. All accused herein together have put the life threat upon her and thereafter the first information came to be registered.
2. This court has taken the cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 498(A), 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC. As per the directions of the court, CC.No.872 OF 2018 came to be registered. In compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C, the copies of the charge sheet and other prosecution papers came to be supplied to the accused.
3. The court, after being satisfied as to existence of materials against the accused to proceed further in 4 CC 872 OF 2018 this matter, framed the charge, read over the same to the accused in Kannada language in which they claim to be conversant with. But they did not plead guilty and they claimed then, to be tried. Therefore, this court issued summons to the witnesses.
4. During trial, the CW1 deposed as PW1. She strangely deposed that there were only some oral clashes between them. The accused did not put her to mental and physical suffrages. At the request of the learned Senior APP, she came to be considered hostile to the case of the prosecution and learned Senior APP cross examined her. But she did not elicit anything which would dismantle her evidence adduced as above. Considering her evidence and the nature of this matter, this court has dropped all other witnesses CW2 to 10 and proceeded to hear the arguments of both sides by dispensing the statement of accused which ought to have been recorded under section 313 5 CC 872 OF 2018 of Cr.P.C., if any incriminating materials would have been adduced by the prosecution.
5. Heard the learned Sr.APP.
6. Heard the learned counsel for accused.
7. Following points arise for determination;
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 being the husband of PW1 in association with other accused herein has inflicted to her both mental and physical cruelties and at their instance PW1 herein underwent an untold hardship and suffrages and therefore their acts are liable to be punished for an offence punishable under section 498A R/W Section 34 of IPC ?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforementioned date, time and place, the the accused herein have put life threat upon PW1 insisting her to mend her ways in their favor, accordingly asserted that if she does not mend her ways, she will be killed etc., therefore they are liable to be punished for an offence punishable under section 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC ?
3) what order ?
6 CC 872 OF 2018
8. Above points have been answered as under; Points' no.01 and 02: In the Negative Point no.03 As per final orders for the following reasons...;
REASONS The prosecution is duty bound to prove the guilt alleged as above against accused. The burden to prove the aspects stated herein above against the accused , heavily rests upon the prosecution.
9. For the purpose of clarity Sections 498A, 506, 34 of IPC are hereby extracted as under ;
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code [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.
7 CC 872 OF 2018 Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code [34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.]
10. Points No.01 and 02; Considering the nature of the offences alleged against the accused, to avoid repetition all the above points have been taken up together for discussion.
8 CC 872 OF 2018
11. Although the PW1 being the prime witness, in the course of trial she did not support the case. She did depose that there were some exchanges of words between her and accused and therefore she did submit a complaint against them, to Beguru police and the accused did not ill treat her and she did not complain against them as to cruelty etc.
12. Although she came to be cross examined by the learned Senior App, nothing much has been elicited by her and PW1 denied all her suggestions regarding the contents of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.
13. Apart from the above, nothing is available on record which would incriminate the accused herein. No doubt, a serious case has been alleged against accused by the prosecution. But merely chargesheeting the accused in the case for the offences which do have gravity, same by itself does not incriminate the accused and thus it cannot be said 9 CC 872 OF 2018 that, by virtue of the registration of the case, the burden rests upon the prosecution to prove the case has been discharged or otherwise.
14. Rest of the witnesses, for the aforementioned reasons have been dropped. Hence keeping in mind the nature of the evidence of PW1 and the materials submitted till date in the matterEx.P1 and Ex.P2 and their contents and the nature of the answers given by her during her crossexamination, this court is of the firm opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case alleged against accused.
15. Though the PW1 has deposed that there were some exchanges of words amongst them and thus she did submit the case etc, those things certainly do not incriminate accused.
10 CC 872 OF 2018
16. There is nothing on record to say that the prosecution is successful in proving that the accused have put the life threat upon PW1. There is nothing on record to say that the prosecution is successful in proving the case. Therefore in view of absence of cogent and convincing evidence against accused which may prove the accusations made as above, this court has no impediment to say that the case of the prosecution fails and accordingly for the foregoing reasons, Points Nos.01 and 02 are hereby answered in the Negative.
17. Point No.3 : The circumstances warrant the following operative portion for the foregoing reasons;
OPERATIVE PORTION Invoking section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, accused Nos.01 and 02 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.498A, 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC. 11 CC 872 OF 2018 The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused Nos.01 and 02 will be in force till completion of appeal period, thereafter, they shall stand cancelled.
Case against A3 has been abated, as she has been reported dead.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court today, that is on 26042022) S.S.BHARATH XLI (41ST) ACMM, BENGALURU 12 CC 872 OF 2018 ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution: PW.1 : Smt.Elwin List of documents marked on behalf of the Prosecution: Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P.2 : Panchanama Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW1 List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused : NIL List of documents marked on behalf of the accused : NIL S.S.BHARATH XLI (41ST) ACMM, BENGALURU;