Bangalore District Court
Yeshawanthpura Police Station vs Unknown on 11 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRAURY 2016
C.C. No.20308/2010
Present: SRI. CHINNANNAVAR R. S.
XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.
COMPLAINANT : Yeshawanthpura Police Station
(State by Sr. A.P.P.)
V/s.
ACCUSED :
1. L. Narasimhaprakash,
S/o.M.N. Lakshminarayan,
Aged about 31 years.
2. M.N. Lakshminarayan
Shetta S/o.
Narasimhashetty,
Aged about 60 years.
3. Smt. Lakshmi W/o. M.N.
Lakshminarayan Shetty,
Aged about 60 years.
(A-1 to 3 are R/o. No.26/2,
5th Main, 5th Cross,
Munibacchappa Colony,
Yashawanthapura,
Bengaluru.)
4. Smt. Yashoda (Suma),
W/o. Eshwar Reddy, Aged
about 29 years.
5. Eshwar Reddy S/o.
Venakatesh Reddy, Aged
about 34 years.
2 C.C.No.20308/2010
(A-4 and 5 are R/o.
No.84/2, 1st Main, 1st
Cross, B.K. Nagar,
Yashawanthapura,
Bengaluru.)
(Reptd. by Sri. S.B., Advocate)
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT
OF OFFENCE : 06.04.2008
DATE OF ARREST
OF THE ACCUSED : During the crime stage
accused are released on
bail.
OFFENCE ALLEGED : U/s.498(A), 341, 114
R/w. 34 of IPC and
Section 3 and 4 of DP Act.
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT
OF EVIDENCE : 20.04.2011
DATE OF CLOSING OF
EVIDENCE : 24.10.2013
OPINION OF THE JUDGE : Found not guilty
(Chinnannavar R. S.)
XXIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
-: J U D G M E N T :-
The PI of Yeshawanthpura Police Station has filed
charge sheet against accused No.1 & 2 for the offences
punishable U/s.498(A), 341, 114 R/w. 34 of IPC and
Section 3 and 4 of DP Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:
It is alleged that, the marriage of the complainant
Smt. Manasa was performed with A-1 on 16/03/2008 at
3 C.C.No.20308/2010
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru and at the time of marriage talks
accused No.1 being husband, of A-2 being father-in-law, A-
3 being mother-in-law of the complainant have demanded
and accepted dowry of Rs.1,75,000/- cash, 150 gms gold
and 1 and ½ kg Silver articles and accepted dowry of
Rs.1,00,000/- through DD and thereby committed offence
punishable U/s. 3 of DP Act.
It is further alleged that, when the complainant was
residing with the accused in the Yashawanthapura accused
No.1 to 3 being in-laws of the complainant, accused No.4
and 5 being family friends of A-1 and at the instigation of
accused No.4 and 5, accused No.1 to 3 used to ill treat the
complainant mentally and physically by insisting her to
bring additional dowry of Rs.75,000/- cash and 30 gms of
gold and thereby subjected married woman to cruelty and
thereby committed offence U/s. 498(A) of IPC.
It is further alleged that, accused being in-laws of the
complainant have demanded additional dowry of
Rs.75,000/- cash and 30 gms gold and thereby committed
offence U/s. 4 of DP Act.
4. The first information has been lodged by the
complainant Smt. Manasa W/o. Krishnamurthy on
04/06/2009 at 12.00 p.m. before PSI of Hosanagara Police
station, Shivamogga. On the basis of written complaint
PSI of Hosanagara police station registered crime No.96 of
2009 for the offences punishable U/s.498(A), 341, 114
4 C.C.No.20308/2010
R/w. 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act and sent FIR
to the court. Since the offence was committed within the
jurisdiction of Yeshawanthpura Police Station he transferred
the FIR to Yeshawanthpura Police Station and PI of
Yeshawanthpura Police Station registered crime
No.268/2009 for the offence punishable U/s.498(A), 341,
114 R/w. 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act and sent
FIR to this court. Later said PI visited shown by
complainant, conducted spot panchanama, arrested
accused and handed further investigation to another
PI(CW.11) who recorded statements of the witnesses and
after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against
the accused for the above said offences.
5. On perusing the charge sheet the court has
taken cognizance for the offences punishable U/s.498(A),
341, 114 R/w. 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act as
against accused persons. During crime stage accused are
released on bail.
6. The copy of the charge sheet and other
materials has been supplied to the accused as required
U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C.
7. After hearing both sides the charge for the
offences punishable U/s.498(A), 341, 114 R/w. 34 of IPC
and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act has been framed. Accused
have denied the charge and claimed trial.
5 C.C.No.20308/2010
8. In order to prove the case the prosecution has
examined PW.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 11.
9. The statement of the accused as required U/s.
313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded and accused denied the
incriminating evidence and not chosen to lead their
evidence. They got marked Ex.D.1 and D.2 through the
cross of PW.1.
10. I have heard the learned Sr. A.P.P. and learned
defense counsel at length.
11. The following point arises for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that, the marriage of the
complainant Smt. Manasa was performed
with A-1 on 16/03/2008 at Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru and at the time of marriage talks
accused No.1 being husband, of A-2 being
father-in-law, A-3 being mother-in-law of the
complainant have demanded and accepted
dowry of Rs.1,75,000/- cash, 150 gms gold
and 1 and ½ kg Silver articles and accepted
dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- through DD and
thereby committed offence punishable U/s. 3
of DP Act.
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that when the complainant
6 C.C.No.20308/2010
was residing with the accused in the
Yashawanthapura accused No.1 to 3 being in-
laws of the complainant, accused No.4 and 5
being family friends of A-1 and at the
instigation of accused No.4 and 5, accused
No.1 to 3 used to ill treat the complainant
mentally and physically by insisting her to
bring additional dowry of Rs.75,000/- cash
and 30 gms of gold and thereby subjected
married woman to cruelty and thereby
committed offence U/s. 498(A), 341 and 114
of IPC.
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that accused being in-laws
of the complainant have demanded additional
dowry of Rs.75,000/- cash and 30 gms gold
and thereby committed offence U/s. 4 of DP
Act.
4. What order ?
12. My answer to the above points is as under;
Point No.1 to 3 - In the Negative.
Point No.4 - As per final order for the following;
REASONS
POINT NO.1 TO 3 :
13. All these points are interconnected to each other
and in order to avoid repetition of facts and also to
appreciate the evidence on record I have taken all these
points for common consideration.
7 C.C.No.20308/2010
Accused have not denied the relationship. They have
not denied the date of marriage but they denied demand of
dowry, acceptance of dowry and ill-treatment to the
complainant. So the burden is upon the prosecution to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In order to
discharge the said burden it relied upon evidence of PW.1
to 7 and Ex.P.1 to 11. PW.1 is the complainant, PW.2 is
the mother of the complainant, PW.3 is the then CPI of
Hosanagara police station who registered crime based on
complaint -Ex.P.1. PW.4 and 5 are elder persons who
participated in the marriage talks. PW.6 is the then PI of
Yeshawanthpura Police Station who conducted part of the
investigation. PW.7 is the then PI of Yeshawanthpura
Police Station who registered crime in his police station
based on the transfer of case from Hosanagara to his police
station and he also conducted part of the investigation.
14. The prosecution has mainly relied upon evidence
of PW.1 and 2. Before considering their evidence the Court
has to consider whether the accused No.4 and 5 can be
prosecuted in this case. As per the case of the
prosecution accused No.4 is the friend of A-1 and A-5 is
the husband of A-4. As per the case of the prosecution
both these accused have instigated/provoked accused No.1
to 3 for demand of dowry and acceptance of dowry. The
learned defence counsel argued that, these accused cannot
be tried for the offence U/s. 498(A) of IPC. He relied upon
the judgment of Supreme Court Reported in (2009) 6 SCC
8 C.C.No.20308/2010
757. As per section 498(A) of IPC the said offence can be
committed by relative of the husband. The relation should
be through blood or marriage, but the friends cannot be
added as a accused for the offence U/s. 498(A) of the IPC.
The said ruling is aptly applicable to the facts of this case.
In the said ruling it is specifically held as under;
"A. Penal Code, 1860, 1860 - S. 498-A -
Persons who may commit offence under -
"Relative of the husband" is S. 498-A, whether
includes "girlfriend" or "concubine" - Held,
status of a relative is conferred only by blood or
marriage or adoption - "Girlfriend" or
"concubine" being not connected by blood or
marriage is not a relative of the husband as per
S. 498-A IPC - Meaning of "relative" depends
upon the nature of statue - Persons who can
commit an offence under S. 498-A are
husband and his relatives only, girlfriend
(appellant herein) being not a relative
cannot be charged under S. 498-A - Family
and Personal Laws - Interpretation of Statutes -
Basic rules - Popular or commonsense meaning
- Penal Statutes - Strict construction of."
15. PW.2 during her examination in chief itself
deposed that, accused No.4 and 5 are husband and wife
and they are family friends of remaining accused.
Admittedly the accused NO.4 and 5 are not relatives of
9 C.C.No.20308/2010
accused No.1 to 3 and hence cannot be added as accused
to this case and the evidence of PW.1 and 2 cannot be
invoked against them for the offence U/s. 498(A) of IPC.
16. In the said ruling it has been specifically held
that, the girlfriend or concubine cannot be tried with
husband for the offence U/s. 498(A) of IPC. In this case
PW.1 and 2 alleged that, accused No.1 has got illicit
relation with A-4. But as per the definition of 498(A) this
accused cannot be tried for the offence U/s. 498(A) of IPC
and evidence on record is not sufficient to attract the
ingredients of section 498(A) of IPC as against this
accused. So the evidence on record is not sufficient to
prove the case against accused No.4 and 5.
17. Now I have to consider the evidence of
prosecution witnesses as against accused No.1 to 3. PW.1
the complainant in her evidence deposed that, accused
have demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry, 200 gms gold,
2kgs of silver and her father agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-
dowry and amount of Rs.75,000/- towards marriage
expenses and 150 gms of gold. She deposed that, at the
time of marriage Rs.1,00,000/- dowry was paid under DD
and 120 gms gold was given to accused. She further
deposed that, when she was residing with the accused,
accused No.1 to 3 with instigation of accused No.4 and 5
were used to ill-treat her by asking her to bring balance
dowry of Rs.75,000/- and 30 gms of gold. She further
deposed that, when she was pregnant accused have
10 C.C.No.20308/2010
aborted the same by giving medicine to her. She further
deposed that, accused No.1 has illicit relation with accused
No.4 and accused No.5 the husband of accused No.4 tried
to misbehave with her. So she supported the case of
prosecution and deposed that, accused have accepted the
dowry and demanded the dowry and ill treated her. Now I
have to consider whether the said evidence given by her
remained constant in her cross-examination. Ex.P.1 is the
complaint, as per the allegations of the complainant at the
time of marriage talks an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- and
150 gms of gold and 1.5 kg silver articles have to be given
to accused. The relevant contents of the complainant is as
under;
"ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉAiÀÄ°è ºÀÄqÀUÀ¤UÉ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉUÉ MAzÀÄ gÀÆ.1,75,000-00 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 150 UÁæA
§AUÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1.5 PÉ.f. ¨É½îAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV wêÀiÁð£ÀªÁVvÀÄÛ. gÀÆ.1,75,000-
00 UÀ¼À°è ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ RZÀÄð ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÉÃjgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
18. So in the complaint it is alleged that, accused
have not demanded said dowry but it is alleged that, they
have agreed to pay said dowry. In entire complaint there
is no allegation that, at the time of marriage accused have
put their demand of dowry. In the complaint itself alleged
that, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is paid as dowry to the
accused through DD No.644992 of SBM. It is alleged that,
the remaining dowry of Rs.75,000/- will be paid at the time
of marriage. In the complaint itself specifically alleged
that, the parents of the complainant have not paid
Rs.75,000/- dowry and 30 gms of gold and accused were
ill-treating the complainant to bring said dowry. Now if the
11 C.C.No.20308/2010
contains of the complaint are considered with evidence of
complainant they are not corroborating with each other.
The complainant in her evidence deposed contrary to the
complaint. She deposed that, accused have demanded
Rs.1,00,000/- dowry and 200 gms gold and her father
agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- dowry and Rs.75,000/-
towards marriage expenses. She deposed that, her father
agreed to pay gold of 150 gms and 2 kgs Silver articles.
During her cross by defence counsel she has specifically
admitted that, the marriage was performed in grand
manner and the said marriage was performed as per the
customs of their community. She also admitted that, DD
of Rs.1,00,000/- was given by her father as contribution to
marriage expenses. She further deposed that, accused
have incurred expenses about Rs.3,00,000/- in the said
marriage. The relevant cross-examination is as under;
"It is true that, it was a grand marriage. It may be
true to suggest accused has spent more than Rs.3 lakhs for
the performance of the marriage. It is true that my father
did not participate in arranging the marriage at Bengaluru.
It is true that, as per the customs of our community usually
the marriage arrangements has to be made by the parents
of the bride. It is true that as my father was alone hence
he agreed to contribute something towards the marriage
expenditure. It is true that, my father has contributed
around Rs.1 lakhs out of Rs.3 lakhs expenses incurred at
the time of marriage."
12 C.C.No.20308/2010
In her cross she has specifically admitted that, her
father has not participated in arranging the marriage at
Bengaluru . She further admitted as under;
" It is true that, my father gave Rs.1,00,000/-
marriage expenses through a DD."
19. So PW.1 in her evidence tried to depose that,
dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- was given through DD, but in her
cross she admitted that, the said DD was paid by her father
voluntarily towards contribution of marriage expenses.
She herself deposed that, the said marriage was performed
as per the custom. So the evidence of the complainant
that, accused have demanded the dowry and they paid the
dowry to accused cannot be accepted. In the complaint
there is no allegation that, accused have demanded the
dowry.
20. PW.1 deposed that, her parents have agreed to
pay 200 gms of gold as dowry to the accused and out of
that, they have paid 170 gms of gold to the accused. In
the complaint it is alleged that, 120 gms of gold was given
to the accused and still 30 gms of gold was due. So the
allegations of the complainant, evidence of the complainant
with respect to demand of gold and acceptance of the gold
by the accused is also not clear and convincing one. It is
specific case of the prosecution that, due to balance of
dowry i.e. Rs.75,000/- and 30 gms of gold there was
harassment to the complainant, but PW.1 during her cross
by defence counsel specifically admitted as under;
13 C.C.No.20308/2010
" It is true to suggest that, the ornaments shown in
the photograph are given by my parents in law to me at
the time of marriage. The said photograph is marked as
Ex.D.1. It is true to suggest that, the ornaments shown in
Ex.D.1 is given to me as per the marriage talks. It is
incorrect to suggest that, the gold ornaments shown in
Ex.D.1 are with me. Witness volunteers that, except
Mangalya chain I don't have any ornaments shown in
Ex.D.1. The said Mangalya chain is weighing around 40
grams which is I am wearing now. Accused have given me
3 silk Sarees worth Rs.25,000/- along with one normal
saree."
21. So in Ex.D.1 i.e. in photographs the Mangalya
chain is appearing and complainant has admitted that, she
is still wearing that, Mangalya chain and except that, gold
article nothing is paid as dowry to the accused. The said
Mangalya chain is given by the parents of the complainant
to her own daughter. So this article cannot be considered
as dowry article. PW.1 herself admitted that, it was given
to her as per marriage talks and she admitted that except
that, she don't have any ornaments shown in Ex.D.1. She
also admitted that, accused have given three silk sarees
worth of Rs.25,000/- each. So the evidence of the
complainant that, accused have demanded the dowry and
accepted the dowry does not inspires confidence of the
Court. When accused were in position to bear marriage
expenses of Rs.3,00,000/- and given saree of Rs.25,000/-
each to the complainant then the case of the prosecution
14 C.C.No.20308/2010
that they were demanding 30 gms gold and Rs.75,000/-
cash as a dowry cannot be accepted. In the complaint
itself it is alleged that, about 120 gms gold was given to
the accused but what are the types of ornaments given to
accused is not at all explained and in Ex.D.1 except
Mangalsutra of complainant no ornaments are shown.
Hence I hold that, the evidence of the complainant is not
sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution.
22. PW.1 during her cross specifically admitted
about the omissions, she specifically admitted that, in
complaint Ex.P.1 she has not mentioned that, during
marriage talks accused have demanded Rs.1,00,000/-, 200
gms gold, 2 kg Silver etc. She also admitted that, at the
instigation of Accused-4 there was demand of dowry. Her
evidence with respect to abortion and misbehavior of
Accused-5 etc is improvement before the Court and there is
no such allegations in the complaint. As per the complaint
the complainant left husband's house on 04/04/2009 but
she filed complaint on 04/06/2009. So there is delay of
more than two months in filing the complaint and this delay
is not at all explained by the complainant. So I hold that,
the evidence of the complainant is not convincing and
cogent one.
23. PW.2 the mother of the complainant deposed
that, at the time of marriage talks accused have demanded
Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry in the form of cash and 150 gms of
gold and 2 kg silver articles and after negotiation they
15 C.C.No.20308/2010
agreed to pay Rs.1,75,000/- amount, 150 gms of gold and
2 kg silver articles. This evidence of the PW.2 is contrary
to her statement, as per her statement given before the
police accused have demanded Rs.1,75,000/- amount, 150
gms gold and 1 ½ kg silver. This evidence of the PW.2 is
contrary to the evidence of PW.1. PW.1 deposed that,
there was demand of dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and 200 gm
gold. But this witness deposed that, demand of dowry of
Rs.2,00,000/ and 150 gms of gold. PW.1 deposed that, her
father agreed to pay dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- but this
witness deposed that, they agreed to pay dowry of
Rs.1,75,000/-. This witness deposed that, they have given
dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- through DD and they have paid
remaining dowry at the time of marriage but PW.1
deposed contrary to it. According to PW.1 and complaint -
Ex.P.1 there was still due of Rs.75,000/- cash and 30 gms
gold and for that due accused were harassing. But PW.2 in
her examination in chief on page No.11 para No.2
specifically deposed that, on the date of marriage they
have given remaining dowry items. The relevant deposition
is as under;
"The marriage was held on 16/03/2008. On the date
of marriage we gave remaining dowry items. The marriage
was performed at Bengaluru as per the wish of the
accused. We spent around Rs.5 lakhs towards the
marriage expenses."
16 C.C.No.20308/2010
24. So according to this witness the marriage was
performed at Bengaluru and they spent Rs.5,00,000/-
towards marriage expenses. But PW.1 herself admitted
that, the marriage expenses were borne by the accused
and her father paid Rs.1,00,000/- through DD as a
marriage expenses. So the evidence of PW.1 and 2 is not
corroborating with each other. PW.2 during her cross by
defence counsel specifically admitted that, accused have
given one gold chain and Mangalasutra to her daughter.
PW.1 has admitted this fact and identified Mangalasutra in
Ex.D.1- photo. She specifically admitted that, the
marriage was grand marriage and said expenses were
borne by the accused the relevant cross is as under;
¢. 26-01-2008 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À MAzÀÄ gÉõÉä ¹ÃgÉUÀ¼À
CAUÀrAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ gÉõÉä ¹ÃgÉUÀ¼ÀÄ gÀÆ.26,000-
00 PÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ . £Á£ÀÆ PÀÆqÀ §mÉÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä CªÀgÀ
eÉÆvÉ CAUÀrUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ. DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ PÁ®PÉÌ MAzÀÄ §AUÁgÀzÀ
ZÉÊ£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁAUÀ®å PÉÆr¹zÀgÀÄ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d.CzÀÄ JµÀÄÖ vÀÆPÀzÀÄÝ
EvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¥sÉÆmÉÆÃzÀ°è PÁtÄwÛgÀĪÀ £ÀPÉèÃ¸ï ¤r-1
DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ PÉÆr¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄzÀĪÉ
§AUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ zÉÆqÀØ PÀ¯Áåt ªÀÄAl¥ÀzÀ°è ªÀiÁr vÀÄA¨Á
CzÀÆÝjAiÀÄV ªÀiÁqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d . ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ°è
¥sÉÆmÉÆÃUÁæ¥Àsgï, «rAiÉÆÃUÁæ¥Àsgï §A¢zÀÄÝ M¼ÉîAiÀÄ Hl PÉÆr¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ
C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. EzÀPÉÌ CAzÁdÄ 4 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä RZÀÄð DVgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ
17 C.C.No.20308/2010
C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. JµÀÄÖ RZÀÄð DVgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. F
J¯Áè ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ RZÀð£ÀÄß DgÉÆævÀgÉà ¨Àsj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d.
25. She further admitted that, DD of Rs.1,00,000/-
was given to accused as a marriage expenses. The
relevant admissions are as under;
"DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀgÉà ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è RZÀÄð
ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÃÛÃªÉ CAvÀ ºÉýzÀÄÝ CzÀPÉÌ £ÁªÀÅ ¸Àé®à RaðUÉ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÀ
ºÉýzɪÀÅ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. F jÃw ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ RaðUÁV £ÁªÀÅ MAzÀÄ ®PÀë
gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ºÀt PÉÆmÉÖªÀÅ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è F ¤²ÑvÁxÀð
C¬ÄvÀÄ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d."
She further admitted as under;
"ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ RZÀÄð £ÁªÀÅ ªÀiÁr®è"
26. PW.2 not all deposed about demand of
additional dowry by the accused. So looking to the above
said admissions of PW.2 I hold that, the parents of the
complainant have given Rs.1,00,000/- through DD as a
expenses and not as a dowry. PW.1 and 2 have admitted
that, the said marriage was performed in grand manner
and accused have beard said expenses and they simply
paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards contribution of expenses. Now
they tried to use the DD as a payment of dowry. The
evidence of PW.1 and 2 is quite contrary to each other.
The evidence of these witnesses is not corroborating with
each other and their evidence is not corroborating with
case of the prosecution. Hence their evidence is not
18 C.C.No.20308/2010
sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution as against
the accused.
27. PW.2 during her cross specifically admitted that,
her son-in-law i.e. accused No.1 used to visit her house
during Ugadi, Ramanavamy etc., and at that time her son-
in-law and daughter were happy. She also admitted that,
she had been to the house of the accused along with her
husband and at that time also her daughter was happy in
in-laws house. She admitted that, during Ashada month
she had been to the house of accused to call her daughter
and even at that time her daughter was happy in the
house of accused. So looking to these admissions and
since there is material contradiction with respect to demand
of dowry and acceptance of dowry I hold that, the evidence
of PW.2 is also not sufficient to prove the guilt of the
accused.
28. PW4 deposed that he has attended the marriage
and he has attended settlement talks during 2009. He has
not at all deposed about the case of the prosecution . So
he was treated as hostile to the case of the prosecution
and he was cross examined at length by suggesting case of
the prosecution but he denied all the suggestions. He
denied that, police have recorded his statement as per
Ex.P.9. Hence his evidence is not available to the
prosecution.
19 C.C.No.20308/2010
29. PW.5 is stated to be elder person who
participated during marriage talks. He deposed that,
during marriage talks accused have demanded cash of
Rs.1,75,000/- and gold of 200 gms. But he has not at all
deposed that, the said demand was fulfilled by the
complainant and her parents. In his 161 statement he
has stated that, marriage talks were held in the house of
Kanakaraju, in his evidence he deposed that, marriage
talks were held in the house of accused. During his cross
by defence counsel he admitted that, he has not acted as
mediator in the marriage. He also admitted that, for
purpose of commission he will do the marriage broker
work. He also admitted that, he do not know the relation
between Accused-1 and complainant. So the evidence of
this witness is not sufficient to the case of the prosecution
to prove its case. This witness has not deposed about as
to how much dowry was paid and how much dowry was
due and why there was ill treatment to the complainant.
30. The evidence of PW.1 and 2 is not supported by
evidence of PW.4 and 5. Even in the evidence of PW.1 and
2 there are several contradictions, omissions and
improvement. The father of the victim was examined by
the prosecution for the reason best known to it.
31. PW.6 the PI of Yeshawanthpura Police Station
deposed about the investigation conducted by him. PW.7
also deposed about investigation conducted by him but the
20 C.C.No.20308/2010
evidence of these police officials is not supported by the
evidence of direct witnesses i.e. PW.1 and 2. hence I
decline to accept the evidence of these police officials.
32. Looking to the evidence of PW.1 and 2 and case
of the prosecution it appears that, after the marriage the
complainant got job and the defence of the accused that
she herself left their house after getting the job and she is
not interested to join them appears to be more probable
than the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW.1
and 2 is contrary to each other on material fact of demand
of dowry and acceptance of dowry. The evidence of PW.1
and 2 is not convincing and clinching one and their
evidence does not inspire confidence of the court. Hence I
declined to accept their evidence.
33. It is well settled position of law that, prosecution
has to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt but the
prosecution has not all proved its case through the
evidence of its witnesses. It is also well settled position of
law but if there exists any reasonable doubt in the case of
the prosecution then the benefit of the doubt shall be
always given to the accused. In this case there are several
reasonable doubts in the case of the prosecution. Hence I
hold that, prosecution has not proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt and I extend benefit of the doubt to the
accused by answering point No.1 to 3 in Negative.
21 C.C.No.20308/2010
POINT NO.2 :
34. In view of my answer to point No.1 in negative
all the accused are entitle for acquittal from the offences
alleged. Hence I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/s. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.1 to 5 are acquitted from the offences punishable U/s.498(A), 341, 114 R/w. 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act.
The bail bonds of the accused and their surety stands cancelled after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer, script transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 11th day of Febraury 2016) (Chinnannavar R. S.) XXIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW-1 : Smt. Manasa
PW-2 : Smt. Vaasavambha
PW-3 : K.C. Purushotham-CPI,
Hosanagara of Shimoga
PW-4 : Ananthapadmanabha Shetty
PW-5 : Ramachandra Gupta
PW-6 : M.K. Ganapathi-PI
PW-7 : Anilkumar-PI
22 C.C.No.20308/2010
Documents marked for the Prosecution:
Ex.P-1 : Statement of Complainant-PW.1 Ex.P-1(a) : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P-2 : Panchanama Ex.P-2(a to c) : Signatures of PW.1, PW.4 and PW.7 Ex.P-3 : Wedding Card Ex.P-4 : Xerox copy of Cheque Ex.P-5 and 6 : Photos Ex.P-7 : Letter Ex.P-8 : Transfer Letter Ex.P-9 : Statement of PW.4 Ex.P-10 : Letter Ex.P-11 : FIR Witnesses examined for the accused:
-NIL-
Documents marked for the accused:
Ex.D.1: Photo
Ex.D.2: Letter written by PW.1 to Accused-1
(Chinnannavar R. S.)
XXIV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.