Bangalore District Court
For The Offences Punishable U/S.498A vs Persons Took Her Back To Their House. It ... on 16 April, 2021
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH46)
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021
PRESENT:
Sri. Abdul Rahim Husain Shaikh,
B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B.(Spl.)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
S.C. No.299/2018
BETWEEN
State by Basavanagudi Women PS.,
Bengaluru .. COMPLAINANT
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
AND
Smt.Rosiya
W/o late Muniswamy,
A/a 45 Yrs.,
R/a No.44, Hombegowda Slum,
Jayanagar I Block, Siddapura,
Bengaluru. .. ACCUSED No.2
(By Sri VN, Advocate)
*****
2
S.C.No.299/2018
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Basavanagudi Women P.S., Bangalore has submitted split up charge sheet against the accused No.2 for the offences punishable U/s.498A and 304B r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act in their Crime No.51/2007 of Basavanagudi Women P.S.,
2. The factual matrix of the case is that:
Accused No.1 Sathya Velu had married the deceased Smt.Vijaya, who is the daughter of CW.2 Smt. Devi, and at the time and prior to the marriage, had demanded and obtained one gold chain, one bracelet, and a pair of ear rings from the complainant as dowry. After the marriage, the deceased started to reside along with accused persons in her matrimonial house and after few months accused No.1 to 3 subjected her physical and mental cruelty by demanding additional dowry of Rs.10,000/ and a scooter. The accused persons have also assaulted, 3 S.C.No.299/2018 abused and subjected the deceased to cruelty in demand of additional dowry. The accused No.1 use to pick up quarrel with the deceased with regard to additional dowry in form of cash and scooter and subjected deceased to physical and mental harassment oftenly. Unable to sustain the physical and mental harassment of accused, deceasedSmt. Vijaya on 5.3.2007 at 4.30 p.m. committed suicide by hanging herself in her matrimonial house. The accused No.2 and others by their act have abetted the deceasedSmt. Vijaya to commit suicide and thereby committed the offences as alleged.
3. The concerned police have submitted split up charge sheet before the jurisdictional II Addl., CMM., Bangalore. The learned Magistrate after taking the cognizance and receipt of split up charge sheet for the offence U/s.498A and 304B r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act against accused No.2, 4 S.C.No.299/2018 committed the case to the Sessions Court by complying Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., furnishing charge sheet copies to the accused No.2. The same was numbered as SC No.299/2018. The accused has complied Sec.437A of Cr.P.C.
4. The charge and additional charge were framed read over and explained to the accused on 10.04.2019 and 18.03.2021 respectively for the offences U/s.498A and 304B r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, for which she has pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5.The prosecution has examined in all five witnesses as PW.1 to PW.5 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P.10, and MO1.
6. After completion of prosecution side evidence, this Court has recorded the statement of accused, as provided U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has denied incriminating evidence present against her, and not chosen to lead defense evidence nor submitted 5 S.C.No.299/2018 anything to Court. The accused has complied Sec.437A of Cr.P.C.,
7.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials on record.
8.The following points that arises for consideration of this court:
1. Whether the prosecution proves that at the time of marriage accused No.2 and others demanded and received gold chain and bracelet to the bridegroom and ear rings to the bride as dowry and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s.3 of DP Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves that after the marriage accused No.2 and others demanded additional dowry of Rs.10,000/ and a scooter from the parents of deceased and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s.4 of DP Act?
3. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused No.2 being the motherinlaw 6 S.C.No.299/2018 subjected the deceasedSmt. Vijaya to physical and mental cruelty by demanding additional dowry and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s.498A of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused No.2 being the motherinlaw of deceasedSmt. Vijaya use to pick up quarrel with the deceased causing her mental and physical harassment subjected her physical and mental cruelty by demanding additional dowry of cash of Rs.10,000/ and scooter from her parental house. Unable to sustain the physical and mental harassment of accused, on 5.3.2007 at 4.30 p.m. the deceasedsmt. Vijaya committed suicide by hanging, and thereby the accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide, and has committed the offence punishable u/s.304B of IPC?
5. What order?7
S.C.No.299/2018
9. This Court has answered the above above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: In the Negative
Point No.3: In the Negative
Point No.4: In the Negative
Point No.5: As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
10. Points No.1 : On perusal of the prosecution papers and evidence present on record, it is very clear that the marriage of deceasedSmt.Vijaya with the accused No.1 was performed six months prior to the date of offence. It is also admitted fact that after the marriage the deceased and accused started to reside together at residential house bearing No.44, Hombegowdanagar Slum, Jayanagar I Block, Bangalore. Such being the case, the main allegation against the accused No.1 to 3 is that they demanded additional dowry of Rs.10,000/ and a scooter from 8 S.C.No.299/2018 the deceased, and for the said reason when their wants were not fulfilled, the accused started assaulting, abusing and subjecting the deceased to cruelty. The accused persons use pick up quarrel with the deceased with regard to demand of additional dowry and scooter from deceaseds' parents, and for the said reason subjected the deceased for physical and mental cruelty. Unable to sustain the physical and mental harassment of accused persons, on 5.3.2007 at 4.30 p.m. deceased committed suicide by hanging herself, and thereby the accused having abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Immediately the concerned police have registered the FIR on the basis of the complaint of complainant for the offences punishable u/s.498A and 304B of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, and after completing of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused for the alleged offences. 9
S.C.No.299/2018
11. It is pertinent to note that in order to prove the said allegations against the accused, prosecution has examined 5 witnesses as PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P10 and MO1.
It is important to appreciate the evidence of PW.1 Smt. Valli, who is the complainant, deposed that the deceasedSmt. Vijaya is her sister daughter, who was given in marriage to accused No.1 and after the marriage she was living in her matrimonial house at Siddapura. It is the evidence of PW.1 that one day when she was in the market, deceasedSmt. Vijaya came to her and told her that the accused No.1 demanding motorcycle, had assaulted her. It is also the evidence of PW.1 that she took deceasedSmt. Vijaya to her house, and later after few days the accused persons took her back to their house. It is also the evidence of PW.1 that once again the accused persons have picked up quarrel with the deceasedSmt. Vijaya, at that time PW.1 pacified the 10 S.C.No.299/2018 quarrel and sent deceasedSmt. Vijaya to her matrimonial house, and on the same day at 4.00 p.m. she was the news that deceasedSmt. Vijaya had committed suicide. At this juncture it is very pertinent to note that the same witness had given her evidence earlier in SC No.169/2009 on 31.07.2010 against accused No.1 and in the said evidence she had deposed that she had no knowledge regarding demand of additional dowry by the accused. It is also her evidence in the said case that she has never given statement before the police official that the accused have subjected the deceasedSmt. Vijaya to cruelty as per her statement Ex.p10 in the said case. Further in that case PW.1 has clearly deposed that she has no knowledge the contents of Ex.P4 complaint. Based on the said evidence accused No.1 was acquitted in SC No.169/2009. At this juncture it is very important to note that the same witness examined as PW.1 has deposed that the police 11 S.C.No.299/2018 officials have recorded her statement/complaint. From all these evidence it is crystal clear that there is no evidence of PW.1 against the accused No.2 as regard to demand of dowry and subjecting the deceasedSmt. Vijaya to physical and mental cruelty abetting her to commit suicide. In view of the same though the complaint is marked at Ex.P.1, the contents are sufficiently and satisfactorily proved. The prime accused No.1 is acquitted in SC No.169/2009 on 8.9.2010 and the case was split up against the present accused No.2, against whom there is no direct allegation of harassment and abetment in the evidence of PW.1. In veiw of the same the evidence of PW.1 cannot be taken into consideration in proving the guilt against accused No.2.
12.In the instant case prosecution examined PW.2, who is the mother of deceasedSmt. Vijaya, who is examined as PW.4 in SC No.169/2009 in case 12 S.C.No.299/2018 against accused No.1. In that case PW.4 has deposed that she was informed by her daughter deceasedSmt. Vijaya that accused No.1 used to assault her, but there is no whisper in her evidence that the accused No.2 along with accused No.1 has demanded additional dowry. In the said case SC No.169/2009 accused No.1 was acquitted on the ground that the evidence of PW.4 who is examined as PW.2 in this case is not sufficient to convict accused No.1. At this juncture on appreciating the evidence of PW.2 it is found that there is clear allegation that accused No.1 used to come home by consuming liquor and assaulting her daughterdeceasedSmt. Vijaya. It is also evidence of PW.2 in this case that her daughter had called her saying that the accused No.1 subjecting her to cruelty and threatened her that he is going to kill her for life for having informed to her mother. From this evidence of PW.2 it is crystal clear that there is no iota of evidence against 13 S.C.No.299/2018 accused No.2 before the Court, who is the mother of accused No.1. The entire allegatins in the evidence of PW.2 in this case also is against accused No.1, the son of accused No.2. who is acquitted in SC No.169/2009 and a case against accused No.2 has been split up. In view of the same in the absence of material evidence against the present accused No.2 before the Court, no specific ground made out to convict the accused No.2. Hence, the evidence of PW.2 cannot be considered in proving the guilt against accused No.2 in the instant case.
13.The prosecution has examined PW.3 Chinnathambi being the pancha to the inquest mahazar has deposed that no inquest mahazar has been executed in his presence and he has no knowledge regarding the contents of the same. In view of it though the inquest panchanama has been executed, but the same has been sufficient and satisfactorily proved, hence the same cannot be 14 S.C.No.299/2018 taken into consideration in proving the guilt against accused No.2.
14.In the evidence of PW.1 it is deposed by the witness that the spot panchanama Ex.P2 that before she arrived at her house the panchanama Ex.P2 had been drawn and she has no knowledge regarding the seizure of any material at the time of conducting spot panchanama. Though she was crossexamined at length by the prosecution regarding execution of spot panchanama, but no evidence has been elicited from the mouth of PW.1 to prove the content of Ex.P2. In the absence of cogent and material evidence regarding the execution of the spot panchanama Ex.P2 the evidence of I.O., PW.5 that he visited and executed the spot panchanama Ex.P2 and seized the material object cannot be considered.
15. In the instant case in order to prove the guilt against the accused No.2 the prosecution examined the I.O., PW.5 who deposed that after 15 S.C.No.299/2018 registering the complaint he has partly investigated the case and recorded the statements of witnesses, and arrested the accused. Further the prosecution has examined PW.4 who after continuing the further investigation has recorded the statements of witnesses CW.2 to CW.4 and after obtaining PM report of deceasedSmt. Vijaya has filed the charge sheet against accused persons. It is very important evidence in the crossexamination from the I.O., PW.4 that during investigation he found that accused No.2 was not residing along with accused No.1 and deceasedSmt. Vijaya. The witness PW.4 has clearly admitted the suggestion put forth by the counsel for the accused in the crossexamination regarding the said aspect, that the accused No.2 was residing in the house adjoining to the backyard of accused No.1 and deceasedSmt. Vijaya. The evidence regarding the said fact: 16 S.C.No.299/2018 2 ನನನ ಅರನರನಪಯಯ 1 ನನನ ಅರನರನಪಯಯ ವವಸ ಇದದ ಮನನಯ ಹಹಭವಗದ ಬನನರನ ಮನನಯಲಲ ವವಸ ಇದದರರ ಎಹದಯಸರಚಸಯವವದಯ ಸರ.
From the appreciation of this evidence of I.O., PW.4 who had filed charge sheet, it is crystal clear that accused No.2 was not residing with accused No.1 and deceasedSmt. Vijaya. In view of the same there is no iota of any evidence from the I.O., PW.4 to prove that accused No.2 was involved in committing the alleged offence against the deceasedSmt. Vijaya along with accused No.1.
16.At this juncture I would like to rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 AIR SCW 3673(Durgaprasad Vs., State of M.P.,) In the said decision the Hon'nble Supreme Court of India referring to Sec.113B of Evidence Act has held that: "Except bald statement made by the mother and brother of the deceased about cruelty and harassment to deceased, there is no other evidence adduced by the prosecution and hence, 17 S.C.No.299/2018 the prosecution has failed to satisfy requirements of Sec.304B of IPC and Sec.113B of Evidence Act and hence, the accused is liable to be acquitted."
The said ruling applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, since only the witness PW.2 Smt. Devi mother of the deceased and aunt PW.1 Smt.Valli have given statements regarding the harassment to the deceased, but to support there is no other evidence adduced by the prosecution. Further the neighbors though cited as witnesses have supported not supported the case of the complainantPW.1. In view of the same the prosecution has failed to satisfy the requirements of Sec.498A, 304B of IPC, Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act and Sec.113B of Evidence Act in the instant case.
17.By analyzing the evidence of witnesses PW.1 to 5 it becomes clear that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to prove the charge leveled against the accused No.2 for the offence punishable 18 S.C.No.299/2018 U/s.498A and 304B of IPC and sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. From the above reasons and discussions it is found that the suicide committed by victim/deceasedSmt.Vijaya cannot be said to be the result of any action on the part of the accused No.2 as contended in the complaint. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.2 has abetted deceased Smt. Vijaya to commit suicide by causing physical and mental harassment, and demanding additional dowry. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
18. Point No.2: In view of answer of this court on points No.1, this court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.2 is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/s.498A and 304B 19 S.C.No.299/2018 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.
The bail and surety bonds of accused No.2 stand canceled.
Office is to preserve the records till disposal of the split up case registered as against accused No.3.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 16th day of April, 2021) (Abdul Rahim Husain Shaikh) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.20
S.C.No.299/2018 ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:
P.W.1: Smt. Valli P.W.2: Smt. Devi P.W.3: Chinna Thambi P.W.4: Puttamma P.W.5: S.Y. Hadimani. List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Spot Mahazar Ex.P.3: Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.4: MLC Ex.P.5: PM Report Ex.P.6: PF No.23/2007 dated 6.3.2007 Ex.P.7: Statement of PC 4643 Ex.P.8: FIR Ex.P.9: Statement of WHC 2288 Ex.P.10: Inquest Mahazar.
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused:
NIL List of Documents exhibited on behalf of Accused:
NIL 21 S.C.No.299/2018 List of Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution:
MO1 Light Green Colour Veil.
(Abdul Rahim Husain Shaikh) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.22
S.C.No.299/2018 Order pronounced in the open Court vide its separate order ORDER Acting U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused No.2 is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable U/s.498A and 304B r/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.
The bail and surety bonds of accused No.2 stand canceled.
Office is to preserve the records till disposal of the split up case registered as against accused No.3.
(Abdul Rahim Husain Shaikh) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.