Bangalore District Court
With All These Acts Of The Accused vs Is That on 20 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE COURT AT: BANGALORE
THIS THE 20th DAY OF MARCH 2018
PRESENT:
Shri. SOMASHEKARA.A, B.A.L., LL.M.
V ADDL. CMM., Bangalore.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 259/2014
The State
Through Police Sub-Inspector
Kamakshipalya Police station,
Bangalore. ... Complainant
(Rep By Learned Sr.APP)
Vs.
Sri. RAMESHA
Son of Anche Venkataramanappa,
Aged bout 52 years,
r/o No.13, 3rd Main road, 9th A Cross,
Agrahara Dasarahalli, Banglaore. ...Accused
(By Shri. Siddappa, Advocate,.)
1. Date of commencement of 17.10.2013
offence
2. Date of report of offence 17.10.2013
3. Arrest of the accused Arrested on 18.10.2013
and enlarged on bail
4. Name of the complainant Latha
5. Date of recording of evidence 21.12.2015
6. Date of closing of evidence 23.11.2017
7. Offences complained of 498 (A), 506, of the
Indian Penal Code
8. Opinion of the Judge Accused not found guilty
9. Complainant by Asst.Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defence by Sri. siddappa
2 C.C.No. 259/2014
Judgment
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kamakshipalya police station, Bangalore, has submitted the present charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal code .
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
The complainant Latha is the daughter of Hanumanthaiah, who was given in marriage with the accused by name Ramesh. It is alleged that, the accused picked up quarrel with the complainant for petty reasons and everyday he used to come to home in the late night at about 11 PM and did not provide sufficient food, subjected her to mental and physical cruelty and on being question the accused abused her in filthy language and harassed her. It is further alleged on 17.10.2013 she went on search of her husband, at about 12 P.M., she found her husband Judge Sign 3 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment in the house of Zareena at Agara and on enquiry she came to know that the Accused got involved in an extra-martial relationship with the said Zareena, and on being question with him, he proclaimed that he will marry the said lady and thereafter he criminally intimated and gave life threat to the complainant, With all these acts of the accused, she rushed to the Kamakshipalya police station and lodged a written complaint to the PI.
The PSI, on 17.10.2013 on receipt of the said written complaint has been registered a case in Cr.No.731/13 and sent the F.I.R to the court.
Further, investigation was proceeded and after due completion of the investigation, the present charge-
sheet has been submitted for the aforesaid offences.
3. As could be seen from the records, during the crime stage itself Accused was arrested and produced before this court and has got bail. After taking cognizance Accused has faced the trial Judge Sign 4 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment through Sri. Siddappa, Advocate. The necessary charges was framed and read over and explained to the accused, wherein, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Afterwards, the prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 11 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and has got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P. 4 (a). during the course of cross examination Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 are got confronted to PW.1 and got marked. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted to close his side of evidence. The statement of the accused as contemplated under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. The accused have denied the entire incriminating material evidences against him, and on his behalf he lead the defence evidence of one Sagar as DW.1. The defence of the accused is that, he has not at all given any torture, on the other hand, the complainant herself left the Judge Sign 5 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment company of Accused and use to reside in her parental home.
4. On the basis of the above facts and circumstances, the following points that are arise for my determination: -
POINTS
1) Does the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused being the husband of the complainant after their marriage the Accused picked up quarrel with the complainant for petty reasons and everyday he used to come to home in the late night hours at about 11 PM and did not provide sufficient food, subjected her to metal and physical cruelty and on being question the accused abused her in filthy language and harassed and subjected her into cruelty and committed the offences as alleged?
2) Does the prosecution further proves that, on 17.10.2013 the accused assaulted to C.W.1 and also committed criminal intimidation by threatening to kill her life and thereby committed the offences as alleged.
3) What order?
5. My findings on the above points are:
Point No.1 - In the negative
Point No.2 - In the negative
Point No.3 - As per final order
for the following:-
Judge Sign
6 C.C.No. 259/2014
Judgment
REASONS
6. POINTS No.1 and 2:- These two points are
interconnected to each other and accordingly, to avoid the repetition of appreciation of evidences for the sake of convenience, I have taken them in common for my discussion.
The learned Sr. APP vehemently argued that, the evidence of complainant along with her father coupled with her relatives are corroborated each other and accordingly, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt According to her, the evidences clearly attracted the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC and sec.3 and 4 of DP Act., and thereby he prayed to convict the accused.
Per contra, Sri. Siddappa, Advocate for the accused persons elaborately argued by evaluating the evidences of the prosecution and pointed out so many contradictions. According to her, the Judge Sign 7 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment contradictions which are appeared in the prosecution witnesses, thrown doubt in view of delay in lodging the complaint about the incident. She much argued on the point that, non-examination of circumstantial and spot Mahazar witnesses is serious and fatal to the prosecution case. She submitted that, there is no corroboration in between complainant and her relatives evidence about harassment and demand of dowry. Finally, she submitted that when the prosecution failed to prove its stand, there is no necessity of the defense evidence. According to her, the accused were falsely implicated in the crime just in order to harass them. Therefore, she prayed to acquit the accused in the ends of justice. In the light of the arguments canvassed by both side, I have carefully perused the evidences of the prosecution witnesses.
Judge Sign 8 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment It is an admitted fact that, the complainant/ Latha is legally wedded wife of the accused Ramesh. It is not in dispute that, her parental house is in Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bangalore and accused is belonging to Kolar. The marriage of the accused and the complainant took place in the year 1996 i.e., 18 years back in Bangalore is also not in dispute. It is also not in much dispute that, after the marriage, both couple lived in Kolar. The serious allegation of the complainant is that, the accused was given inhuman torture and harassment in Kolar town, and due to which, she left his company and came back to Bangalore village, wherein also the accused use to come late night often and given harassment to her and that she also found the accused having affair with another women by name zareena. These allegations are serious in dispute. In view of this, as per the settled position of law, the prosecution has to prove that, the complainant/ Lalitha was subjected Judge Sign 9 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment to cruelty by the accused within the meaning prescribed U/Sec. 498-A of IPC. In order to establish it, the prosecution examined the complainant, her mother and brother as well as neighbors. Accordingly, I have to made scrutiny of these evidences.
7. P.W.1/ Latha is the real victim, who in her evidence deposed that, after the marriage the accused took her to Kolar town, wherein, he was led amicable life for a period of 6 months. She deposed that during the marriage talks the accused promised her that after marriage he is go to reside at Bangalore, but he left her alone at Kolar, and he used travel daily from Bangalore to Kolar, in that regard quarrel took place with them, and he left her, but the accused has not assaulted her. she further deposed there was panchayat in the presence of elders of accused in the year 2001, her father agreed to give a house, from the year 2001 she residing in Judge Sign 10 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment the said along with her children, the accused working at RPF, doing the night duty, and on 17.10.2013 at about 10.10 a.m. he telephoned and intimated her he will return after 15 days, as he had work at Dharmawaram, However, none of these testimony does not found in her complaint at Ex.P.1. The PW.1 made so many improvements in her chief examination, which it self falsify the case made out by her. Even, we taken her improved version, undoubtedly, there had been complaint by the PW.1 of physical and mental torture upto 1996 when she left the matrimonial home and started living with her father. The complaint of cruelty was lodged by filing an FIR on 17.10.2013 i.e., after 17 years of leaving the matrimonial home. Moreso, the mental or physical torture was not continuous on the part of the Accused as there is no complaint against him between 1996 to 2013 i.e, leaving the matrimonial home by the PW.1.
Judge Sign 11 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment DgÉÆæ vÀ£ÀUÉ ºÉAqÀw ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ°è M¦à zÁ¸ÀgÀºÀ½îAiÀÄ°è 7 £Éà PÁæ¸ï£À°è ¨ÁrUÉ ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÁQë ¸ÀévÀB ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ vÀ£Àß vÀAzÉ C ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇ°¸ÀjUÉ ¤Ãr®è. £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ M§â¼É ªÀÄUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¦æÃw ªÁvÀì®å¢AzÀ ¸ÁQëzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
DgÉƦUÉ 3 ²¥ïÖ£À°è PÉ®¸À EgÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. gÁwæ ¥Á¼ÀåzÀ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ CgÉÆæ gÉ樀 UÁrAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. gÁwæ ¥Á½AiÀÄ°è gÉ樀 UÁr gÀPÀëuÉUÁV J°èUÉ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. gÁwæ¥Á¼Àå¢AzÀ ¤RgÀªÁzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ PÁAiÀÄĪÀ ºÁUÉ EgÀ°®è.
DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉAqÀw ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PËlÄA©PÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj CfðAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄzÀå¹ÛPÉUÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ gÁf ¸ÀAzÁ£ÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ §UɺÀj¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è gÁf ¸ÀAzÁ£ÀzÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ §gÉAiÀįÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj M¥ÀàAzÀzÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ªÀiÁr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
Judge Sign 12 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment The above admissions given by the Pw.1 clelarly indicates that the Accused was tried his level best to get back his wife to lead happy married life by filing petition for restitution of conjugal rights petition before family court and compromised the matter before Mediation as per the terms and conditions of the PW.1, inspite of which, the PW.1 not bothered to join the company of Accused, which itself clearly shows that the PW.1:Latha is not interested to join the company of Accused.
8. The PW.1 further deposed that on 17.10.2013 at about 10.10 a.m. the Accused telephoned and intimated her he will return after 15 days 17.10.2103, since got suspicious on him and as such she along with her parents and friends have been to HSR layout police and after informing to the police she had been to the House of Zareena, who is having illicit relationship with her husband and knocked the door, wherein, she found her Judge Sign 13 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment husband with the said lady and she know that the accused had an illicit contact with one lady by name Zarina, she and her parents have questioned the same, accused admitted that he is going to marry the said lady, and threatened her. However, none of these testimonies does not found in her complaint at Ex.P.1. Apart from this in the cross examination PW-1 categorically admitted that she do not know the address of the house of said Zareena.
9. it is pertinent to note here that, According to PW.1 she and her parents have went to Agara, HSR layout, Bangalore to search the Accused in the house of said Zareena, but the said fact is not deposed by PW.2/Hanumantaiah and PW.3/Yashodamma. If at all the PW.1 to 3 have been to HSR layout and found the Accused in the house of said Zareena, certainly they would lodge complaint against the Accused or Zareena for the offence punishable under section 494 or 497 and 506 of IPC before the HSR layout police, Judge Sign 14 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment but they have not done so., for the reasons best known them.
10. It is important to note here that, the complainant suspected that her husband was having an affair with another woman, was the only issue that was the reason for the cold relationship between Accused and the complainant. This coupled with the absence of any evidence of any such illicit relationship between Accused and another women, except the evidence of PW.1 the prosecution has not placed any documentary proof or evidence before this court, thus in my opinion the prosecution setup a weak attempt to make out a case to the effect that the Accused had indeed developed a relationship with Zareena would amount to cruelty is un believable theory of the prosecution. At this juncture it is useful to refer the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High court in 2016(5) KCCR 1073(DB) in between Judge Sign 15 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment state of karnataka vs Dr.Sagar Bansale and others;
PENAL CODE,1860-section 498A-
Acquittal-Allegation of cruelty against Husband-But wife not leading evidence in support of her case-
Making allegation of illicit relationship but failing to prove-No evidence of ill-treatment not demand for dowry-While pointing out other inconsistencies, court below negated allegations in complaint and held that charges have not been established beyond reasonable doubt- Proper.
Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2009) 6 Supreme court cases 757 (U. SUVETHA versus state by Inspector of police and another) which reads thus.
B. Penal code, 1860-S.498-A Expln- Ingredients of, explained interpreated -"cruelty", meaning of -Husband living with another women, whether commits "cruelty" under section 498A-Held, living with another woman may be an Judge Sign 16 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment act of cruelty for the purpose of Judicial separation or dissolution of marriage but it cannot be stretched to amount to cruelty under S.498-A- of IPC.
11. Further the Prosecution examined the father, mother and Brother of the victim as PW.2 to 4.
PW.2: Hanumanthaiah, has deposed that in the year 1999 marriage of his daughter took place along with accused, and after the marriage his daughter and accused lead their marital life at kolar, and they were cordial for about one and half years, there was quarrel took place with his daughter and accused, with regard to shifting of house to Bangalore, but the accused left the company of his daughter and threatened her, his daughter intimated the same to him, this testimony is not found place in the 161 statement of this witness, here I mean to say that there is an improvement in the evidence of PW.2. It is worth to note that she partly treated as Hostile to the case of prosecution and subjected for Judge Sign 17 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment cross examination by the learned APP and try to elicit that about the Physical and mental harassment meted out by the Accused, but noting has been culled out from his mouth about the ingredients of section 498A of IPC , thus the evidence of the father of the victim appears to be doubtful.
12. PW.3 Smt. Yashodhamma, mother of the informant, she has deposed that her daughter marriage with accused took place on 17.11.1996, after the marriage her daughter and accused lead their marital life at Kolar, and they were cordial for about one and half years, there was quarrel took place with her daughter and accused, with regard to shifting of house to Bangalore, the accused left the company of her daughter and threatened her, her daughter intimated the same to her, in the panchayat they advised the accused, but accused continued the same, later her daughter told that accused had an illicit contact with one lady.
Judge Sign 18 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment In the cross-examination, she deposed that, she never saw the torture given by the accused to her daughter in Kolar. Inconsistent to the case made out by the investigation, it is revealing from her mouth that, P.W.1 use to reside along with her in Bangalore separately. The relevant portion of cross examination is reproduced herein below:
" ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉAiÀÄ°è ZÁ¸Á-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èlÄÖ PÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉ0zÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ ªÀiÁr®è. ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £À0vÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝU DPÉ ¥ÀzÀ« ªÁå¸À0UÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ J0zÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÁåAiÀÄ ¥À0ZÁ¬Äw DzÀ ¢£Á0PÀ,w0UÀ¼ÀÄ,ªÀµðÀ £É£¦®è.
1£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ZÁ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ «ZÉÑÃzsÀ£À PÉÆÃj Cfð ¸À°è¹®è É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ EvÀåzÀsåð DVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj CzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ZÁ¸À- gÀªÀgÀ DgÀÉÆæAiÀÄ Judge Sign 19 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment eÉÆvÉ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃV®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
DgÉÆæ ¨ÉÃgÉ ºÉAUÀ¹£À eÉÆvÉ CPÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzÀs ElÄÖPÉÆAr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj CgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ºÉAUÀ¹£À dÉÆvÉ ªÁ¸À«zÀÝ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CqÀØ gÀ¸ÉÛ ºÉüÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è, AiÀiÁªÀ ¢£À, wAUÀ½£À°è £ÁªÀÅ DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E£ÉÆߧ⠺ÉAUÀ¸À£ÀÄß MnÖUÉ MAzÉà ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £ÉÄÁÃrzɪÀÅ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
The above piece of evidence clearly discloses that PW-3 never deposed that, accused is having illicit relationship with another women by name Zareena, because of such reason given torture to P.W.1. and thus the evidence of PW-3 creates doubt in the mind of this court regarding the harassment meted out by the accused.
13. PW.4:Ravikumar, the brother of complainant, he has deposed that the marriage of his sister took Judge Sign 20 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment place with accused on 17.11.1996, after the marriage his sister lead their marital life at Kolar, and they were cordial for about three months, at that time the accused working in RPF, there was quarrel took place with his sister and accused, with regard to shifting of house to Bangalore, accused left the company of his sister and threatened her, his sister intimated the same to him, in the panchayat they advised the accused, but he continued the same, later they came to know that the accused had an illicit contact with one lady. The testimony of this witness is improved and quite contrary to his statement recorded by the police under section 161 of Cr.P.C. Thus it is very clear that PW.3 is deposed in a exaggerated version than the PW.1. In toto, the evidence adduced by this witness is full of omission and same is elicited in his cross-examination as contradiction to his own statement. Thus, P.W.1 to 3 are being the blood Judge Sign 21 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment relatives to each other, their version is quite inconsistent to the version of the investigation. Their testimony is not so corroborated to come to a only conclusion that, there was a cruelty by the accused as alleged by the investigation.
14. P.W.5/ Chandrasekhar, he has not supported the case of prosecution and as such he was treated as hostile and in spite of his cross examination nothing has been culled out from his mouth.
15. PW.5:Lalitha, neighbor of complainant, she has deposed that accused and complainant were residing near her house, accused coming home in the late hours, when complainant asked the accused, he abused the complainant in filthy language, when complainant asked to bring food for children, he abusing complainant in filthy language, accused subjected the complainant physical and mental cruelty without providing house hold articles. The Judge Sign 22 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment evidence adduced by this witness is contrary to the statement recorded by the police. It is not only inconsistent to the testimony of P.W.1, but, also contrary to the case made out by the investigation. Muchless, P.W.6 in her cross-examination clearly deposed like below:-
" £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇ°¸ÀjUÉ ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À«zÉÝãÉAzÀÄ «¼Á¸À PÉÆnÖzÉÝ £É£À¦®è. ¸Àzj À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ «¼Á¸À £ÀªÀÄä CPÀÌ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄzÀÄÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DgÉÆæ gÉʯÉé E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¥ÉÇ°¸ï ¹§âA¢ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ Hj£À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. CªÀgÀ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ªÉÃ¼É £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. DgÉÆæ ªÁ¸À«zÀÝ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌ AiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÁ¸À«zÀÝgÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è. ZÁ¸À-4, 5 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ MAzÀĪÀgÉ Q«Ä zÀÆgÀ EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ZÁ¸À-4 jAzÀ 6 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À«zÁÝgÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®èè. DgÉÆÉæ ZÁ¸À-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ AiÀƪÀ ¢£À, ªÁgÀ, wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è."
Judge Sign 23 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment The above testimony of PW-6 indicates that she do not know anything about the family affairs of PW-1 and the accused. She appears to be interested witness and adduced her evidence just to support the case of PW-1. Therefore in my opinion the evidence of PW-6 is not trustworthy.
16. On looking to the Ex.P.1, nowhere, it was contended that, the accused was residing and given torture to P.W.1 in Kolar. On looking to 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 and other witnesses said to have been recorded by the PSI/ investigating officer on 17.10.2013. On such of the statement it came to know to the police that, the continuation of the cruelty in Kolar village or in Bangalore.
17. P.W.8/Shivannadha bevur is the Investigating Officer, who has deposed about the receipt of Ex.P.1 from the P.W.1 and registered the case and after completion of investigation he submitted the charge Judge Sign 24 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment sheet against the Accused. He deposed about the official act done by him.
18. Regarding the allegations of not providing sufficient and proper food by the accused, that allegation is general in nature and specific instances are not made out. It is also trite that mere general allegations about the cruelty and using the phraseology of Section 498-A of IPC would not be sufficient to meet the requirements of the said provision. In this regard, it is profitable to place reliance upon the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2009(4) Crimes 219 (SC) (Neelu Chopra & Another Vs. Bharti) which reads thus:
"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973--Section 482--Appeal against judgment of High Court whereby petition for quashing criminal proceedings against appellants pending before the trial court had been dismissed--Complaint had been filed under Sections 406, 498A read with 114 IPC against appellants by their daughter in law--In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end Judge Sign 25 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment of the matter-What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence--Perusal of complaint showed that it was sadly vague--It did not show as to which accused had committed what offence and what was the exact role played by appellants in the commission of offence--There could be said something against husband of respondent as the allegations were made against him more precisely but he had already expired--Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged appellants on the basis of vague and general complaint which was silent about the precise acts of the appellants--High Court merely mentioned that the allegation in the complaint was of retaining jewellery articles in possession of the husband and the petitioners--Now if the articles were in the possession of the husband, there is no question of the appellants being in possession of the jewellery--Insofar as the offence under Section 498A IPC was concerned, no material or allegation worth the name found against appellants--All the allegations appeared to be against the deceased husband--Impugned judgment of High Court set aside--Complaint quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.-Appeal allowed."
19. It also trite that harassment simplicity is not cruelty. Section 498-A explanation (a) mandates that any willful conduct, which is of such a nature as, is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or grave injury or danger to life, limb or Judge Sign 26 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment health of the woman. In this connection, it is profitable to place reliance upon the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in 2008(4) Crimes 350 (State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao) which reads as under:
"(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860--Section 498A--Harassment simpliciter is not "cruelty"--It is only when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property etc., that it amounts to "cruelty" punishable under Section 498-A."
In the instant case also, PW-1 never stated that accused has meted out cruelty to her so as to compel her to commit suicide, grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Even in substance, the evidence let by prosecution does not meet these essential requirements.
20. In the instant case also, plain reading of First Information Statement as well as evidence of PW-1 if Judge Sign 27 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment they are taken on their face value, do not prima facie spells about the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC. Reverting to the factual matrix of the present case, as already noticed, allegations made by informant in Ex.P.1 as well as in her evidence, these allegations are too general and vague in nature which are not sufficient to hold that accused have subjected her to mental and physical cruelty.
21. Thus, on an evaluation of entire evidence of the prosecution, no doubt there may be some evidence in support of the case of prosecution from the mouth of P.W.1 to 6 as argued by the learned APP. But, they are interested relative witnesses as pointed out by me, I do not understand, why the prosecution not placed before me the material witness like spot mahazar and the neighbors of Accused or PW.1's home who are cited as CW.7 to 10, in the charge sheet in such of this heinous incident. The non-
Judge Sign 28 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment production of such material witness is goes to show that, either the incident is false or the testimony of the witnesses may be untrustworthy. The non- examination of such material witnesses severely fatal to the prosecution case and adversely inferred on the veracity of the witness. Apart from this, the facts and circumstances about the seizure of P.W.1 to 4 and their state of affairs are completely contradictory in between the version of P.W.1, 2 and 8 as pointed out by me, which goes on creating doubt about connectivity of the same as the definite version made out by the prosecution. Undisputedly, the delay of 16 months is not at all explained from any of the witnesses. From the result of cross-examination, it clearly revealing to me that, there was sufficient scope to the informant as well as the investigating officer and other relatives of the victim for an early information about the incident. Inspite of it, the same was not done. Such an unexplained Judge Sign 29 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment circumstances, certainly, thrown doubt on the entire case of the prosecution in view of the absence of material witness like CW.2,3,7 to 10 as well as the contradictions found in the evidences of P.W.1 to 5 as discussed supra. The material contradictions in respect of the scene of occurrence is seriously pointed out by Sri. Siddappa Advocate during the course of her arguments cannot be possible to over look on an evaluation of the evidences of the prosecution. The severe ego in between the family of the complainant and the accused, clearly elicited during the course of cross-examination. In such of the circumstances, it cannot be possible to overrule the possibility of implication of the accused persons. On looking to the evidence of the prosecution in its entirety, I do not found any cogent and corroborated evidence to accept the incident beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the accused persons are entitled for Judge Sign 30 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment the benefit of doubt from the own contradictory evidence of the prosecution.
22. On over all scrutiny of entire evidences of the prosecution, one set of evidences speaks that, the accused acted upon the cruelty in Kolar or Bnaglaore. However, nobody knows what actually happened in kolar town except P.W.1. Even, we taken into consideration about the evidence of P.W.1, the same is not corroborated with her earlier statement. Even, her statement in the witness box is not corroborated with the testimony of her father and relatives. In my opinion on the face of the evidences of the prosecution in its entirety without any doubt, it can be say that, there is no consistency in the prosecution case about the definite act of the accused as alleged and thereby creating serious doubt in the mind of this court to believe the developed version of the P.W.1 to 6 without base in Ex.P.1. Because of this reason, it is my opinion Judge Sign 31 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment that, the prosecution failed to convince me about the act of the accused as a cruelty within the terms of the meaning as explained in Section 498-A of IPC. Therefore, I do not found any strong consistent, cogent and corroborative evidences in the prosecution to attract the ingredients of Section 498- A of IPC.
23. As per the explanation appended to the Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, the cruelty as deposed by P.W.1 and 2 does not revealing about any injury sustained to the P.W.1 and thereby the same does not indicate the ingredients attracted to the explanation of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, in my opinion the prosecution is unable to convince me in what way its case is attracted under Section 498-A of IPC. Under these facts circumstances clearly establishes that the accused neither harassed the PW.1 nor made any demand of dowry as alleged. The Documents produced by the Judge Sign 32 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment Accused No.1 indicates that he has discharged his duty as a husband more than the expectations of PW.1.
24. On over all scrutiny of entire evidences of the prosecution, one set of evidences speaks that, the accused acted upon the cruelty in Kolar. However, nobody knows what actually happened in kolar town except P.W.1. Even, we taken into consideration about the evidence of P.W.1, the same is not corroborated with her earlier statement. Even, her statement in the witness box is not corroborated with the testimony of her own father, brother and mother like P.W.2 to 4. On the face of the evidences of the prosecution in its entirety without any doubt, it can be say that, there is no consistency in the prosecution case about the definite act of the accused.
25. It is worth to note here that the accused on his behalf examined one witness by name Sagar M.S Judge Sign 33 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment who is cited as CW-8 in the charge sheet witness column. It is very surprise to say that if at all the said CW-8 is given statement U/s 161 of Cr.P.C to the police, certainly the prosecution would have been examine him on their behalf. But, for the reasons best known to the prosecution they have given up the said witness. On the other hand the accused has taken advantage of the same and examined that said Sagar as DW-1. In his evidence he deposed that the CW-1 and accused have led happy married life. He further deposed that the Accused neither harassed nor ill-treated her in any manner.
It is worthwhile to know that the accused himself bearing the expenditures of the education of his children. This fact has been categorically admitted by all the prosecution witnesses. Apart from that, the accused is also taking care of the children health. In order to show the same the Accused produced the fee receipts and medical bills Judge Sign 34 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment for having to show that he had paid the school fee and medial expenses of his children. Intoto, the accused being husband of CW-1 had taken proper care of his wife and children as a dutiful husband, what else more required to woman to lead a happy married life with a husband like accused.
26. On over all facts and circumstances revealing from the evidences, it appears to me that, the nature of the quarrel in between the complainant and the accused was routine in nature for their domestic affairs, but, not with intention to harass the P.W.1. Because of this reason, it is my opinion that, the prosecution failed to convince me about the act of the accused as a cruelty within the terms of the meaning as explained in Section 498-A of IPC. Therefore, I do not found any strong consistent, cogent and corroborative evidences in the prosecution to attract the ingredients of Section 498- A of IPC. The facts and circumstances revealing from Judge Sign 35 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment the evidences by itself sufficient to extend benefit of doubt to the accused. In toto, in my opinion, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt to the hilt. Hence, point No.1 is held in the negative.
27. POINT No.4:- In view of my findings on points No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following ;
ORDER The accused is hereby acquitted under Sections 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A- and 506 of IPC, His bond and surety bond shall stands cancelled.
Accused is directed to execute personal bond of Rs.10, 000/- towards compliance of section 437A of Cr.P.C. (Typed, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of March 2018) (SOMASHEKAR.A) V ADDL. CMM., B'lore.
Judge Sign 36 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined by the prosecution.
P.W.1 - Latha Kumari 21.12.2015 P.W.2 - Hanumanthaiah 18.06.2016 P.W.3 - Yashodamma 16.08.2016 P.W.4 - Ravi Kumar 02.09.2016 P.W.5 - Chandrashekar 16.11.2016 P.W.6 - Lalitha 16.11.2016 P.W.7 - Veerappa 19.11.2017 P.W.8 - Shivananda Bevour 27.07.2017
2. List of the documents exhibited for the prosecution.
Ex.P.1 - Complaint Ex.P.1(a) - Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.2 - Mahazar Ex.P.2 (a) - Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.3 Statement of C.W.4 Ex.P.4 Statement of C.W.14 Ex.P.4 (a) Signature of C.W. 14 Ex.P.5 - FIR Ex.P.5 (a) - Signature of C.W. 15 Ex.P.6 - Invitation Ex.P.7 - Photos Ex.D.1 - Order Booking Receipt
3. List of the witnesses examined for defence.
D.W.1 Sagar
4. List of the Documents exhibited for defence. Ex.D1. order of Booking recipt
5. List of the MOs marked in the evidence.
-NIL-
(Somashekhar.A) V ADDL. CMM., B'lore Judge Sign 37 C.C.No. 259/2014 Judgment Judge Sign